MÉTODOS DE OBTENCIÓN DE DATOS

The TCF is described as a set of transferable ideas that can be applied across a range of disciplines (Land et al., 2008). Theoretically the framework draws on a number of different perspectives leading Land et al. (2008) to refer to it as “a conceptual sangria” (px11), which does not fit one particular label. Broadly speaking the framework can be seen to take a social constructivist position in that learners are viewed as constructing knowledge within a social context. Social constructivism upholds that individuals mentally construct understanding through cognitive processes. However, these processes are derived from the social relationships that they are preceded by. Therefore whilst constructivism considers the individualised cognitive construction, social constructivism recognises the influence of social interaction, culture and discourse in meaning-making (Young & Collin, 2004; Aubrey & Riley, 2016).

Walker (2013) proposed that a TC can be considered as a product, developed in the mind of the learner, and a process, a transformative journey having distinct phases. The product view of TCs incorporates cognitive ideas with the TCF being aligned with conceptual change models. In exploring this Davies and Mangan (2007, 2008) made a distinction between basic concepts and TCs. Basic concepts are those in which understanding from every day experience is transformed as ideas from the discipline are combined with personal experience. Students bring non- specific knowledge with them; however, through exposure to disciplinary interpretation students can relate this knowledge to the particular disciplinary ideas. A TC differs in that more profound conceptual change occurs as students develop ways of thinking and practising within the discipline. There is integration of disciplinary ideas, sometimes other TCs or lower levels concepts, for a unified view to be developed. Transformation occurs as theoretical perspectives are acquired. Students may undergo transformation in how they are

able to use this transformed understanding to construct disciplinary narratives. In this sense TCs are central to the mastery of the subject (Land et al., 2008).

TCs have also been associated with different forms of knowledge. Perkins (2008) differentiated between possessive, performative and proactive knowledge. Possessive knowledge refers to information which is retained in working memory for use within a given situation or context, for example telephone numbers or the opening hours of a restaurant. Performative knowledge relates to what is done with the knowledge held. This goes beyond possession, in that how well something is understood, depends on whether a person can use this knowledge in performance. Proactive knowledge goes beyond understanding in that not only is knowledge possessed and applied, it is proactively deployed in connection making and further knowledge generation. TCs, Perkins (2008) argued, are associated with such proactive knowledge.

Crossing the threshold demonstrates an epistemic shift in how the discipline is understood along with “serious energetic engagement with knowledge and alertness to where it applies” (p.13). Proactive knowledge applies to what is done with the understanding within, but also outside of formal study. It is this proactive knowledge that is needed to apply theoretical perspective of nursing to its actual practice within clinical contexts.

Comparisons with the TCF can also be drawn with the distinction made between deep and surface approaches to learning in the phenomenographic tradition (Marton & Säljö, 1976). Whilst a surface approach reflects an intention to reproduce facts through memorisation, a deep approach aims for understanding through a critical consideration of the concepts. Whilst the surface approach can be aligned with possessive knowledge, the deep approach relates to proactive acquisition of knowledge. However, approaches to learning themselves do not involve a threshold, although adopting a deep approach may enable the student to view the

concept differently with understanding of the concept and its inter- relatedness to others within the discipline, thereby crossing the threshold.

The process view of TCF is related to the transformative nature of knowledge as students undertake a learning journey (Walker, 2013) and is reflected in the original Meyer and Land (2003) definition. The key characteristics of a TC are embedded within the learning journey that students make, during which they will enter a liminal space of uncertainty as new ways of knowing come into view and old ones have to be relinquished. This notion of liminality is central to the process view of TCF. Parallels can be drawn here with Säljö’s conceptions of learning model (Säljö 1979, cited in Entwistle, 2008) who identified developmental progression as having distinguishable categories as the learner moves from acquiring knowledge and memorising what has been learnt, to applying the use of the knowledge. Here the learner reaches a threshold as learning becomes equated with understanding. Learners attribute personal meaning, ideas are understood related to previous knowledge and experience, with transformation of understanding and possibly personal identity taking place. This

developmental model has similarities with the TCF in describing transformations of thinking as thresholds are crossed. However, these transformations are not discipline specific thresholds and students will not necessarily have conscious recognition of enhanced understanding. Within the TCF the process of learning is contents based, TCs are the direct focus of learning and therefore learning is directly experienced by the student (Entwistle, 2008).

Cousin (2008a) has recognised similarities between the notion of a liminal space in the TCF and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) advocated by Vygotsky. The ZPD refers to the space between the learner’s actual knowing and their potential knowing. Through scaffolded support learners can cross this zone gaining access to new spheres of knowledge. As with the liminal journey, moving through the ZPD involves the uncertainty of transitional states until mastery is

reached. This movement is not necessarily linear, involving recursive movements in a similar way to the oscillation described within the liminal space of the TCF. However, the ZPD does not directly address issues related to transformation of identity as identified within the TCF

(Cousin, 2008a). The TCF draws on social learning theory and affinities can be drawn with Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice (Land et al., 2008), which in turn draws on the notion of ZPD. Based on situational learning theory, a community of practice is formed when groups of people “who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic deepen their knowledge and expertise in this areas by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p.4). A community of practice is more than an informal network. Wenger (1998) suggested communities of practice come together because they are about something, they continue to exist as members engage in a collective process of learning, producing shared practice. Wenger et al. (2002) identified that although communities of practice may take a variety of forms, they do all share a basic structure with the three defining characteristics of domain, community and practice. Domain creates a shared identity and common ground that the community of practice focuses on, legitimising the value and purpose to members. Community creates the social structure in which learning takes place through interactions and relationships amongst members. Practice is the shared repertoires of members including documents, experiences, information and ideas. The specific knowledge shared, developed and maintained by the community is done so through these repertoires (Wenger et al., 2002). These characteristics link understanding with identity, both individually and as a community member. Through participation in a community of practice identity is developed and members engage in authentic tasks through formal and informal learning interactions between novices and experts. Lave and Wenger (1991) referred to ‘legitimate peripheral learning’ in which newcomers actively participate in simple tasks, working alongside experts. As learning develops newcomers move towards full participation, reminiscent of progression through the liminal space within the TCF. However, the social and situated aspect

of learning is emphasised more strongly here as the communities of practice framework emphasises the informal nature of learning that takes place within working communities, rather than through delivery of formal curricula: “the learning that is most personally

transformative turns out to be the learning that involves membership in these communities of practice” (Wenger, 2009, p.212). Although the TCF recognises a social dimension to learning, the liminal space within TCF places greater emphasis on the journey of students as individuals (Savin-Baden, 2008).

The transformational nature of the learning journey within the TCF can be likened to the transformational learning theory of Mezirow (Meyer et al., 2010). Transformative learning theory refers to the process whereby students undergo fundamental change in the way they view themselves and the world. Mezirow (2003) referred to a ‘disorientating dilemma’ as the trigger for this transformation. The students frame of reference is transformed “to make them more open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action” (Mezirow, 2000, p.7-8). Transformative learning occurs when the student questions current understanding and discovers faulty assumptions. The student acts differently as new knowledge is generated based on their experience, reflection and analysis. This can be seen to correspond with the instigative features of a TC within the pre-liminal mode and the subsequent journey through the liminal space and threshold crossing. Mezirow (2009) emphasised social discourse as essential for transformative learning to take place and focuses on critical reflection as a further major element. However, the affective processes involved in transformation are less defined within his work (Meyer et al., 2010). For example Cranton and Carusetta (2004) highlighted that transformative learning occurs when students actively engage in the learning process in a climate of authenticity, collaboration and openness, therefore engaging on an affective level. Such recognition of the affective domain is more in keeping with the TCF in that changes in

cognitive understanding are accompanied by a change in subjectivity during the liminal phase (Meyer et al., 2010).