Departing from the possibilities offered by situated perspectives, sociocultural theories describe learning and transfer as a cultural and personal endeavour that focuses on the dialectic relation between the individual and the setting, including the people and objects within the setting (Beach 1999; 2003). According to Beach (1999, p.106), this dialectic relation posits that "learners and organizations exist in a mutually constitutive relation to one another", in which, both the individual and the context are transformed by each other. Conceptually, this means that within sociocultural perspective the nature of transfer moved from a transition between static contexts (Konkola et al., 2007), to the incorporation of movement and transformation in a multi- directional and reciprocal way (Beach, 1993; 2003; Lobato, 2006; Konkola et al., 2007).
Methodologically, it might also mean that research should incorporate a third space into the analysis of transfer. That space would be the interaction between individuals and context, where new meanings, identities and artefacts are created. This third space would, then, contribute to the research developed by classical perspectives, focusing on the individual (Bereiter, 1995; Bransford and Schwartz, 1999) and the tasks (Thorndike, 1924) and situated perspectives, which highlighted context as a focus of analysis. For this, Beach (1999; 2003) introduced developmental coupling as the concept that would become the unit of study of consequential transitions. It focuses on the outcomes of changing individuals and social activities and relates to artefacts, as the "objects that embody human intention and agency" (Beach, 1999, p.120). The relevance of this concept is that it offers new lenses to look at transfer of learning and understand how individuals progress in different settings.
Following this, Beach's study (1999; 2003) of Nepalese students becoming shopkeepers explained how the students' struggle between keeping the notation style learned in school or the identification with that practice in the
workplace resulted in the development of their own notation style. This new notation style was not the isolated consequence of each setting but the outcome of the dialectic relation of those students with both contexts.
Another relevant contribution of the sociocultural perspective is the reconceptualization of transfer as consequential transitions (Beach, 2003, 1999), which is further developed below, and the definition of generalization as "the continuity and transformation of knowledge, skill and identity across various forms of social organizations" (Beach, 1999, p.112). Lobato (2006) explains that such a definition characterizes transfer as more than the reproduction of something previously learned, or the mere movement of knowledge between spaces. It is not just the knowledge that is transformed, but also the individual, with his or her identity and social interactions, enacting a constant reconstruction of their relationship with the context (Konkola et al., 2007).
Here, a key aspect for Beach (1999; 2003) is that transitions are indeed consequential and developmental in nature. Transitions are consequential when they are "consciously reflected on, often struggled with, and the outcome changes one's sense of self and social positioning" (Beach, 1999, p.114). Beach (1999; 2003) often addressed these consequential transitions as becoming someone different, which is why transitions must be understood as developmental.
Overall, the outcome of the dialectic relationship between the individual, the context and the artefacts can be "life transforming" (Beach, 1999, p. 113) in the sense that the individuals can change their knowledge, identity and ways of knowing (Beach, 1999; 2003). However, not all consequential transitions are the same, and Beach (1999; 2003) developed four types of consequential transitions that individuals can go through in their lives. They are, as presented in Table 3.2, lateral, collateral, encompassing and mediational transitions. According to Beach (1999, 2003), all individuals experience such transitions at some point in their lives, which is why being able to categorise them was an important step towards the analysis of consequential transitions.
For example, in traditional views of transfer or even within the interpretation of Human Capital Theory and employability frameworks presented in Chapter
2, the transition from university to the workplace would be characterised as a lateral transition, meaning a unidirectional, progressive transition. For this study, however, collateral, encompassing and mediational transitions are also important options to describe the students' placement experiences, as they open the scope for interpretation and understanding of less linear and progressive transitions.
Table 3.2 –Types of consequential transitions (Beach, 1999; 2003)
DEFINITION FEATURES EXAMPLES
LATERAL
The individual moves from one activity to another in a pre- existing and progressive manner. Between pre- existing social activities, Unidirectional, Progressive.
School; Moving from school to the workplace; Becoming a parent. COLLATERAL Individuals participate simultaneously in more than one related activities. Between pre- existing social activities, Multidirectional, Negotiated.
Part-time job while working; Entering alcoholics anonymous.
ENCOMPASSING
The individual moves within the same activity. Within the boundaries of the same activity, some sense of progress.
Promotion within the same company; Introduction of new software in the workplace; Introduction of new legislation or rules. MEDIATIONAL The individual participates in simulated activities. Within the boundaries of the same activity, simulation of real activities. Role-play games; Placements and internships.
The argument is that work-placements or internships can be seen, for example, as mediational transitions of real workplace experiences, some type of "as if" experiences of what is to be a professional and work in any given organization (Beach, 1999; 2003). In the placements students can experience real interactions with colleagues, costumers, employers and, to a large extent, live through the main features of a real workplace.
However, the placement experience is also a negotiated experience of belonging and professional development and in this sense may be correlated with the dialogic nature of collateral transitions (Beach, 1999; 2003). Students
will be somewhere in between their student and professional identities, somewhere in between university and the workplace, and must, at all times, negotiate their goals and learning with both contexts. This struggle is also present within the placement itself, where students progress in the workplace practices by continued engagement with the setting, the activities and the people. This is the definition of an encompassing transition, focusing on the development that exists within the boundaries of any given activity or organization (Beach, 1999; 2003).
What this study takes from this brief conceptualization of the transition between higher education and the workplace as consequential transitions is that it is complex and can be investigated through several analytical lenses. Therefore, one of the purposes of the next sections is to shed some light on the possible constraints to explore the transition between university and the workplace and provide a rationale for the conceptual and methodological decisions that are made in developing this study.