Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice: Exploration, Conceptualisation and Description in the Context of Chemical Process Technology (Technical ... Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, 36) 3030927695, 9783030927691

Citation preview

Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36

Mariana Orozco

Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice Exploration, Conceptualisation and Description in the Context of Chemical Process Technology

Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects Volume 36

Series Editor Rupert Maclean, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Associate Editors Felix Rauner, TVET Research Group, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Karen Evans, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Sharon M. McLennon, Newfoundland and Labrador Workforce Inno, Corner Brook, Canada

Advisory Editors David Atchoarena, Division for Education Strategies & Capacity Building, UNESCO, Paris, France András Benedek, Ministry of Employment and Labour, Budapest, Hungary Paul Benteler, Stahlwerke Bremen, Bremen, Germany Michel Carton, NORRAG c/o Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland Chris Chinien, Workforce Development Consulting, Montreal, Canada Claudio De Moura Castro, Faculade Pitágoras, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Michael Frearson, SQW Consulting, Cambridge, UK Lavinia Gasperini, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy Philipp Grollmann, Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BiBB), Bonn, Germany W. Norton Grubb, University of California, Berkeley, USA Dennis R. Herschbach, University of Maryland, College Park, USA Oriol Homs, Centre for European Investigation and Research in the Mediterranean Region, Barcelona, Spain Moo-Sub Kang, Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training, Seoul, Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of) Bonaventure W. Kerre, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya Günter Klein, German Aerospace Center, Bonn, Germany Wilfried Kruse, Dortmund Technical University, Dortmund, Germany Jon Lauglo, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Alexander Leibovich, Institute for Vocational Education and Training Development, Moscow, Russia Robert Lerman, Urban Institute, Washington, USA Naing Yee Mar, GIZ, Yangon, Myanmar Munther Wassef Masri, National Centre for Human Resources Development, Amman, Jordan Phillip McKenzie, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia Margarita Pavlova, Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Theo Raubsaet, Centre for Work, Training and Social Policy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Barry Sheehan, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia Madhu Singh, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg, Germany Jandhyala Tilak, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi, India Pedro Daniel Weinberg, formerly Inter-American Centre for Knowledge Development in Vocational Training (ILO/CINTERFOR), Montevideo, Uruguay Adrian Ziderman, Bar-llan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

The purpose of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects Book Series is to meet the needs of those interested in an in-depth analysis of current developments concerning various aspects of education for the world of work with particular reference to technical and vocational education and training. The Series examines areas that are at the ‘cutting edge’ of the field and are innovative in nature. It presents best and innovative practice; explore controversial topics and uses case studies as examples. The audience includes policy makers, practitioners, administrators, planners, researchers, teachers, teacher educators, students and colleagues in other fields interested in learning about TVET, in both developed and developing countries, countries in transition and countries in a post-conflict situation. The Series complements the International Handbook of Technical and Vocational Education and Training, with the elaboration of specific topics, themes and case studies in greater breadth and depth than is possible in the Handbook. Topics covered include: training for the informal economy in developing countries; education of adolescents and youth for academic and vocational work; financing education for work; lifelong learning in the workplace; women and girls in technical and vocational education and training; effectively harnessing ICT’s in support of TVET; planning of education systems to promote education for the world of work; recognition, evaluation and assessment; education and training of demobilized soldiers in post-conflict situations; TVET research; and, school to work transition. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Publishing Editor: Melody Zhang E-mail: [email protected]

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/6969

Mariana Orozco

Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice Exploration, Conceptualisation and Description in the Context of Chemical Process Technology

Mariana Orozco University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands

ISSN 1871-3041 ISSN 2213-221X (electronic) Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects ISBN 978-3-030-92769-1 ISBN 978-3-030-92770-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book was written based on my PhD dissertation to obtain the degree of Doctor of Education Sciences at the University of Antwerp. It connects my interest in chemical engineering science and technology to my interest in the psychology of learning and to my interest in epistemology. This book is dedicated to all (future) professionals of all ages, who are passionate about any field they have chosen to explore, who do not understand the difference between ‘need to know’ and ‘nice to know’, who can never give a yes/no answer to the question ‘Do you understand?’, and who do not accept limits to their curiosity. This book ideally aims to encourage and empower those professionals, to create awareness among educators and instructors about their crucial role in such rich professional development, and to advance our understanding of theory-practice integration in terms of reasoning. This work has been possible thanks to the expertise and support of others. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of David Gijbels, Vincent Donche, Noel Clycq, Päivi Tynjäla, Isabel Raemdonck, Piet van den Bossche, Lore van Praag, Ward Nouwen, Marianne Samson, Marc De Smedt, Erik Myin, Arthur Bakker, Michael Gessler, Katrien Dingemans, Margot Carvers, Patricia Van Coppenolle, Walter Dechateau, Kris Bosch, Mieke Boon, Carla De Smedt, Ivo De Smedt, the anonymous reviewers, and participants to the investigations. University of Twente, Enschede The Netherlands

Mariana Orozco

v

Series Editor’s Introduction

24 October 2021 This insightful book, by Mariana Orozco, is the latest volume to be published in the long-standing Springer Book Series Technical and Vocational Education and Training. It is the 20th volume to be published to date in this TVET book series. It is increasingly accepted by governments and policymakers worldwide that skills development for employability, and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) have a crucially important role to play if countries worldwide are to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, many argue that education and training is the master key to achieving the SDGs, with enhanced skills development for life and employability having a particularly important role to play. This book explores, conceptualises and describes the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) in the context of chemical process technology. It examines what constitutes ILTP and how it develops. As Mariana Orozco notes, in everyday educational practice, but particularly in vocational education and training, theory and practice are often regarded as intrinsically distinctive forms of knowledge that require different pedagogical approaches. The author draws attention to the acknowledged importance, and urgency, to effectively integrate theory and practice, since a separation of theory and practice is a threat to pedagogical development. This is particularly noticeable in vocational education and training. In terms of the Springer Book Series in which this volume is published, the various topics dealt with in the series are wide ranging and varied in coverage, with an emphasis on cutting-edge developments, best practices and education innovations for development. More information about this book series is available at https://link. springer.com/bookseries/6969. We believe the book series (including this particular volume) makes a useful contribution to knowledge sharing about technical and vocational education and training (TVET). Readers of this or other volumes in the series who have an idea for writing (or editing) their own book, on any aspect of TVET, are encouraged to vii

viii

Series Editor’s Introduction

approach the series editor, either directly or through Springer, to publish their own volume in the series. We are always willing to assist prospective authors shape their manuscripts in ways that make them suitable for publication in this series. School of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Rupert Maclean

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Opening Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Summary of the Main Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Elaboration of the Main Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 What the References to Theory and Practice Conceal . . . . . 1.3.2 To Whom Integration Is Relevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 The Problem of Omitting the Explanandum . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Raising the Central Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Addressing the Central Question: The Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Empirical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 From Physico-Chemical Properties to Process Safety Measures . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 4 4 5 7 8 9 13 13 15

2

Overview of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Epistemological Roots of Professional Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Historical Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 From Dualism to Inferentialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 What Does One Integrate? The Objects of Integration . . . 2.1.4 Is Integration Desirable and Attainable? About Logics and Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Notion of Inference Spans Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 A Theory of Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 The Rules of the Game: Deontic Scorekeeping . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 The Web of Reasons: A Conceptual Context . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Theoretical and Practical Rationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Inferentialism and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Links Between Inferentialism and Education . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Inferentialism in Empirical Research on Learning . . . . . . 2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

19 19 19 22 22

. . . . . . . . . . . .

24 27 28 29 29 31 33 36 37 40 40 42 ix

x

3

4

Contents

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Ontological and Epistemological Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Rationale for the Methods Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Methodological Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 The Role of Inferentialism in This Dissertation . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Empirical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 The Empirical Context as a Methodological Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Broader Empirical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Instructional Context and Its Key Actors . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 The Empirical Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

45 45 46 46 48 49 49

. . . . . .

50 50 51 53 57 58

Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Sensitising Concepts, Distinctions, and Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Epistemological Assumptions: From Legacies to Personal Conceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Forms of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 The Notion of Integration: Setting the Scene for Integrative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The Participants in the CPT Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Data Collection Design: Methods, Techniques, and Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Procedure for Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Results of the First Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Several Forms of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge . . . 4.5.2 The Relationships Between Forms of Knowledge . . . . . . . 4.6 Results of the Second Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Between-Integration and Within-Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Integrative Learning as Process and as Outcome . . . . . . . . 4.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Focus on the Actors’ Personal Epistemologies . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Focus on the Conceptualisation of the ILTP in Terms of Its Process and Outcome Aspects . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9.1 Extracts from Instruments of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9.2 Focus Group Schedules – The Mentors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9.3 Focus Group Schedules – The Tutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 61 63 64 65 65 67 67 68 68 70 72 72 74 79 79 80 86 86 89 91 92 92 93 97

Contents

xi

4.9.4 Focus Group Schedule – The Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.9.5 Interview Schedule – The Tutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 5

The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Non-dualistic Perspective on Theory and Practice . . . . . . . 5.1.2 An Inferentialist Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 The Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Operationalisation of the Inferentialist Framework . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Rationale for the Methods Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 Trustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.6 Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Overarching Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Implications for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.5 Concluding Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Transcription Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Analysis Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 105 106 107 111 113 113 118 119 121 126 127 127 127 129 136 143 145 147 148 150 151 152 152 153 153 156 157

6

Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Review of the Main Conclusions and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 What We Now Know About the Theory-Practice Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Key Actors’ Conceptions of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge and Their Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Process and Outcome Aspects of the ILTP in T-VET . . . . . 6.2.4 Bringing Theoretical and Practical Judgements Together in Discursive Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Overall Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Focus as a Strength and as a Weakness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 159 160 162 164 166 168 169 172

xii

Contents

6.5

Methodological Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 The Extent of Generalisability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 The Natural Empirical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 Evaluation of the Student’s ILTP Process and Outcome . . . 6.6 Opportunities for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Exploring Beyond the Rationalistic Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 Responsiveness: Judgement and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 Representation and Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4 Social Reasoning and Inner Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.5 Inferentialism and Conceptual Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.6 Truth and the Formation of Epistemic Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.7 Inferentialist Perspective on Expertise Development . . . . . . 6.6.8 Transfer of Theory and Practice through an Inferentialist Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.9 Measuring the Extent of the Theory-Practice Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Implications for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Implications for Education and Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8.1 For Those Concerned with the ILTP in T-VET . . . . . . . . . 6.8.2 Recommendations Based on our Empirical Work . . . . . . . . 6.8.3 Broader Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 Final Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

174 174 175 178 178 178 180 181 182 182 183 183 184 185 186 187 188 191 195 197 197

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

About the Author

Mariana Orozco completed her PhD at the University of Antwerp, in the Faculty of Social Sciences, following a career as a chemical engineer in various industrial sectors in different countries. During her career in the chemical industry, she became increasingly interested in how professionals (at all hierarchical levels) learn and develop in the workplace, both individually and collectively. Her research is situated in the areas of professional learning and learning in transition. She is particularly interested in the micro-level of education and instruction, learning theories and the psychology of learning, reasoning in learning processes, and educational research methodology. She holds a master’s degree in chemical engineering (Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Argentina), a master’s degree in instructional and educational sciences (University of Antwerp, Belgium), and a master’s degree in educational research (University of Portsmouth, UK). Currently, she is conducting research on teaching and learning of higher-order thinking skills in engineering education, in the field of epistemology of science in practice, at the University of Twente.

xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Opening Statement

In everyday life, people often make references to theory and practice in terms of distinctive entities, while problematising the distance between them. For example, the idea that practical knowledge alone can make things work and that only theoretical knowledge can provide reasons for why and how something works. This leads to a sense of impossibility of reconciling theory and practice, so people may abandon the idea of integrating them for considering it a pointless enterprise. In everyday educational practice, particularly in vocational education and training, theory and practice are often regarded as intrinsically distinctive forms of knowledge that require different pedagogical approaches (Derry, 2016). In the best case where both forms are considered valuable, the focus on what is distinctive generates the problem of bridging theory and practice in a way that is still unclear. For example, the acknowledged urgency to bridge theory and practice usually calls for ‘pedagogies of reflection’ (Guile, 2010), but the learner is left alone to find out how to accomplish this reflection task (Guile, 2006). Alternatively, the distinction between theory and practice is substantially disregarded through the conception of certain forms of amalgamated knowledge (e.g., work process knowledge) that exalts practice at the expense of theory (Guile, 2010). In educational research, many scholars recognise a distinction between theory and practice in terms of forms of knowledge, and acknowledge the relevance of integrated forms of knowledge for more insightful learning and for the further professional life. Yet it is not clear whether the relationship between theory and practice is a combination, a hybridisation, an integration, or something else. Eventually, integrative pedagogy models (e.g., Tynjälä, 2008) propose activities and resources that facilitate such integration. However, such models do not seem to rest on elaborated conceptualisations of ‘integration’, nor on how such integration may develop over time (Barber, 2012). The insights into the concept and process of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7_1

1

2

1 Introduction

integration seem to have been omitted or at least not made explicit. The new challenges imposed on education by rapidly changing societal and technological advances, require the revision of existing pedagogies that can effectively meet those goals (Hiim, 2017). The further development of integrative pedagogy models may be hampered by the lack of understanding of the concept and the process of theorypractice integration. We contend that new research efforts are needed to (a) propose a perspective on theory and practice that recognises their distinctive and joint value, (b) provide evidence that the interrelationship between theory and practice is feasible, (c) conceptualise the relationship between theory and practice and (d) describe how this relationship evolves (or at least varies) over time. Together, these elements are needed to provide more solid grounds for new pedagogical advances and, therefore, to contribute to educational research and practice. The aim, in this book, is to make such a contribution. This chapter follows with a summary of the topic, and the justification and purpose of the present book. Next, it elaborates on these ideas to raise the central question. It further explains how this question is addressed throughout the book, based on contributions from a series of four studies. Finally, this chapter presents the context of the empirical studies and, finally, provides an illustration of theorypractice integration in a conversation between a student and their instructors.

1.2

Summary of the Main Ideas

This book is concerned with the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP), its exploration, conceptualisation, and description. This work aims to enhance the understanding of what integration means in a particular context within technical vocational education. It further aims to advance a description of how integrative learning proceeds when seen through an inferentialist epistemological lens. With this new knowledge we intend to provide a more robust underpinning for the continuing development of integrative pedagogy models and, consequently, to contribute to the advancement of instructional designs that build on such models. An interdisciplinary approach has been used throughout this work. The focus of this book is on the learning of theory and practice that proceeds integratively, i.e., a focus on how such a process and its outcomes are conceived in a micro-level instructional context (rather than imposing borrowed conceptions on its actors), and a focus on how the integration develops if considered from an inferentialist, non-dualistic perspective of theory and practice. Such a perspective nourishes the idea of a distinction between theory and practice at an analytical level only, while it refrains from providing a priori definitions of theory and practice as intrinsically different forms of knowledge. This idea is important, because it resolves the problem of dualism (i.e., unreconcilable separation of theory and practice) without abandoning the distinction (Guile, 2006).

1.2 Summary of the Main Ideas

3

The relevance of the topic of integration is often revealed in the literature by overt and implicit references to the determinant role integration plays in technical vocational education and training (T-VET); this refers to areas such as alternating schoolbased and work-based education, school-to-work transitions, workplace learning in general, professional growth and expertise development (Tynjälä et al., 2003). Theory and practice, in terms of forms of knowledge, have been proposed as elements of expertise that strengthen each other. Such a mutual relationship (often referred to as integration, combination or even harmonisation), however, has not been satisfactorily described to date. This knowledge gap has been attributed, firstly, to a confusion between what facilitates integration and what integration is (Barber, 2012) and, secondly, to an epistemological disagreement about theoretical and practical knowledge, and about their relationship (Hiim, 2017; Guile, 2006). Firstly, before facilitators can be considered, the more fundamental question about integration includes: (1) an ontological problem about the very nature of integration and an epistemological problem about how to generate integrated knowledge, (2) a need to state what the objects of integration are, and (3) a description of how integration and integrative learning proceed. These three points do not provide a solution, rather they describe what it takes to propose a solution (i.e., what the elements are that, together, would count as a satisfactory solution). These topics are addressed throughout this work and presented in the following chapters. Secondly, extreme perspectives on the relation between theory and practice have been proposed to be detrimental to advancements in our knowledge of integration (Guile, 2006) and, therefore, preventing further development of integrative pedagogies. At one extreme, one can find a strict separation of theory and practice as two intrinsically different objects. This first view creates the need to ‘bridge’ theory and practice and forms the basis of the ‘pedagogies of reflection’. This call for reflection can have both positive and negative implications, e.g., reflection allows for recognition of experience, thus expectedly supporting students’ development (Tynjälä, 2008), but it is often unclear how such reflection should proceed, and results in learners being left to work this out on their own (Guile, 2010). At the other extreme, there are work-process perspectives on professional knowledge that tend to exalt the relevance of practice at the expense of theory. This second view can result in negative effects on professionals’ performance, and further personal and professional development (Guile 2006, 2010). It should be clear that ‘reflective practice’ is not criticised, rather the idea that theory and practice are separated entities that need to be bridged, and that learners are responsible of doing so (without specifying what is to be bridged and how). This point is further elaborated in Chap. 2. There appears to be a missing definition of integrative learning that may be hindering pedagogical advancements, particularly in vocational education. Therefore, it is relevant to solve this omission regarding the fundamental conception of integration before continuing to discuss what facilitates its progress. Indeed, Winch (2010) warns that a faulty account of integration poses difficulties for the development of useful pedagogies and curricula in areas that are particularly engaged in the development of practical knowledge, such as vocational education.

4

1 Introduction

In sum, the hurdle to overcome refers to a gap in the current knowledge of integration (or, more particularly, in the current knowledge of the integrative learning of theory and practice) and it represents a threat to pedagogical development that is particularly noticeable in vocational education and training (Schaap et al., 2012; Winch, 2010). Simultaneously, as previously explained, the omission problem seems to be rooted in epistemological disagreements and adoptions of non-conducive perspectives on theory and practice in the past. The epistemological position on vocational or professional knowledge that one adopts is crucial, as it is expected to have implications for curriculum design, for perceptions of curriculum relevance, for actual educational practices, and for research concerned with the integration of theory and practice. As pointed out by Guile (2006, 2010), Brandom’s Inferentialism offers a means to resolve the problem of perspectives. According to inferentialist ideas, it is possible to distinguish between theory and practice while not falling into dualistic thinking (i.e., theory and practice being methodologically different, though not ontologically different). Following the preceding argument, we contend that a strong focus on research is necessary which can provide a conceptualisation and a description of the ILTP because it is only when this process is understood that we can think about how to facilitate it. In the urgency to overcome the omission problem, there was a call to generate new knowledge on integration and the opportunity to conduct the research project presented in this book. We responded to this urgency by reviewing the existing knowledge on integration and by conducting further empirical investigations in a context that is not only appropriate and convenient for these purposes but, moreover, that enriches this work for being exemplary in terms of integrative learning. Up to this point, the main ideas behind this work on the broad topic, the situation, the relevance, and the overall problem have been summarised. These ideas are elaborated in the following subsection.

1.3 1.3.1

Elaboration of the Main Ideas What the References to Theory and Practice Conceal

Theory is when you know everything, but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but nobody knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works, and no one knows why! [anonymous]

Dualist accounts such as this humorous quotation illustrate a deep-rooted theorypractice dichotomy that leads to the question of the nature of theoretical and practical knowledge in the first place, and to the question of how to ‘combine’ or integrate them. This duality has many facets, and we are particularly concerned about its implications for education in relation to learning in the transition to professional life and the further development of expertise.

1.3 Elaboration of the Main Ideas

5

Policy-oriented literature refers to ‘struggles to relate theory to practice’ (Cedefop, 2019), ‘reconciliation of theory and practice’ (Cedefop, 2015), a need to ‘bridge theory and practice’ (Kamarainen et al., 2002), a need to ‘carefully sequence theory and practice’ (Kamarainen et al., 2002; Krichewsky et al., 2010) and a need to ‘balance theory and practice’ (Greinert & Varsori, 2004). Each of these references denotes a dualistic perspective. Dualism, we contend, is reinforced by the positivistic idea of theory and by an a priori definition of practice. The positivistic idea of theory refers to a conception that theory generalises practice, is verified by practice and finally starts guiding practice (Matusov et al., 2019). Such guiding occurs when theory ‘transfers back’ to practice as a technology (to provide sets of instructions that predictably lead to the successful accomplishment of tasks when skilfully applied). This results in practice no longer being an art but being transformed into a technology. The a priori definition of practice refers to both the goal and the quality criteria that pre-exists the practice itself. On the other hand, as pernicious as the theory-practice dichotomy, is the equalisation of theory to practice. This equalisation often results in overshadowing the theoretical component of vocational knowledge (Guile, 2006). The integration of theory and practice, in particular, has generated much interest and concern, as it is proposed as a ‘requirement’ for the development of vocational and professional expertise (Tynjälä, 2008). Theoretical concepts are considered of utmost importance in all vocations and professions in modern society. Such concepts are involved in descriptions of how and explanations for why, and therefore, are closely related to actual professional practice (Hiim, 2017). For these reasons, theory is deemed to offer broader social perspectives on vocational practice. In other terms, the conception that vocational or professional knowledge mainly comprises manual skills is highly debatable in a technological and complex society as there are numerous vocational tasks which require advanced practical and theoretical understanding. Therefore, the “recognition that vocational knowledge and high-level competence include theory” (Hiim, 2017, p. 12) is essential in technical vocational education and training (T-VET). Along the same lines of thinking, Winch (2010) argues for more emphasis on knowledge rather than on ‘skills’ in vocational education curricula.

1.3.2

To Whom Integration Is Relevant

The integration of theory and practice has been held (overtly or implicitly) to play a determinant role in domains such as alternating school-based and work-based education (Sloane, 2014), school-to-work transitions (Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011; Gessler & Howe, 2015), workplace learning in general (Beckett, 2000), and professional growth and expertise development (Tynjälä, 2008). Particular interest in such integration prevails in today’s technical vocational education and training (T-VET); for example, the ‘vocational pedagogy in enterprises programme’ (Cort et al., 2004) and the ‘bridging the gap project’ (Lutgens & Mulder, 2002). Certainly,

6

1 Introduction

it has been proposed that a deep understanding of the way in which the relationship between forms of knowledge develops in action and judgement, “is a matter of greatest interest for those who are concerned with the development of professional judgement, action and expertise” (Winch, 2010, p. 15). The following four references further illustrate the interest in the theory-practice integration and the advancements in particular research areas. First, in the context of alternating school-based and work-based education, integration in terms of ‘harmonisation processes’ is held to be necessary to make cohere the parts of the training offered by each learning environment (Sloane, 2014). Although the objects of such harmonisation are not explicitly mentioned, this deliberate integration is advanced as particularly necessary in cases where the workplace is the main provider of ‘the practical elements’ of the training. Second, in the line of research concerned with transitions (e.g., from school to work life), an integration-transfer analogy is drawn that yields a possible distinction between certain integration processes (Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011). It is suggested that the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes take place to varying degrees. Also, in the field of school-to-work transitions, it is claimed that ‘work-based learning projects’ are driven by the “overarching goal of the integrated delivery of theoretical and practical skills by means of working and learning assignments” (Gessler & Howe, 2015, p. 232). Whether the theoretical aspects are truly a part of learning in this ‘work process oriented’ approach is debatable, and a matter for further research. Third, Beckett (2000) proposes that workplace learning is more than the successive refinement of formally acquired propositional knowledge. This advocates an epistemology of practice for the whole person (i.e., organic learning) that revendicates practical reasoning, while dislodging formal theoretical reasoning from its usual central position, and for integrated competence as a logically and empirically sound model (Beckett, 2000). Fourth, when it comes to expertise development, it has been proposed that “the development of vocational and professional expertise requires the integration of different types of knowledge and interaction between theory and practice” (Tynjälä, 2008, p. 131). Indeed, early studies reveal that having ‘well-organised and integrated knowledge structures’ is one characteristic (among others) typical of experts (Tynjälä, 2013). Furthermore, the model of integrative pedagogy (Heikkinen et al., 2011; Tynjälä, 2008; Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012; Tynjälä et al., 2006), which is based on accounts of professional expertise, presents such expertise as consisting of a highly integrated unity of ‘theoretical or conceptual knowledge’ and ‘practical or experiential knowledge’ (next to another two basic components, i.e., ‘self-regulative knowledge’ and ‘sociocultural knowledge’). The main principle of the model is that learning environments and situations must provide both students and professionals with all these components in an integrative fashion assisted by various pedagogical tools. In general, curriculum designers increasingly recognise that “vocational knowledge and high-level competence include theory” (Hiim, 2017, p. 12). This stems from an understanding that vocational competence cannot be confined to manual skills (Hiim, 2017) or limited to well-structured problem solving (van Merriënboer,

1.3 Elaboration of the Main Ideas

7

2013) in a modern, technological, and complex society where many professional tasks require advanced practical and theoretical knowledge (Hiim, 2017). Indeed, “many occupations rely on systematically organised propositional knowledge for their practice, [. . .] because they could not be practiced effectively [...] without doing so” (Winch, 2010, p. 25). In all, it is commonly accepted that while direct work experience provides learners with particular, situated knowledge, theory provides them with conceptual, general knowledge (Tynjälä et al., 2003). Other authors also acknowledge that it might not be sufficient to simply confront the learner with practice and, therefore, we should not overpraise experiential, tacit knowledge: “the very practice that leads to expertise also endangers it: tacit knowledge is often tacit blindness” (Neuweg, 2004, p. 144). From these ideas on the relevance of both theory and practice, it follows that these ‘kinds of knowledge’ have the power to strengthen and enrich each other through some sort of mutual interrelationship. In accordance with this line of thinking, it has been proposed that “the integration of these elements of expertise may promote the transfer of learnt skills to new environments” (Tynjälä et al., 2003, p. 160). Prior studies related to the topic of integration provide important insights into what facilitates integration of related, though not equivalent, objects of integration. For example, Ellström (2001) suggests several factors that are critical to facilitating the integration of learning and work, as well as the conditions under which these factors are expected to operate. In their turn, Fischer et al. (2004) and Bremer (2005) set as goal the ‘acquisition of work-process knowledge’ and propose that this is facilitated by vocational curricula that focuses on the rapid changing demands of work. Furthermore, comparative studies interested in stakeholders’ views on the connection between learning sites, propose that participation and engagement are key in the development of ‘professional or vocational competence’ (Choy & Sappa, 2016; Sappa et al., 2016). On the other hand, Schaap et al. (2012) advocate for a focus on ‘boundary objects’ to understand and promote the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes in hybrid learning environments. Additionally, Tynjälä (2008) advances various ‘mediating tools’ as facilitators of the integration of formal and informal learning. Finally, Billett (2009) focuses on the learner’s agency, in terms of the ‘personal epistemologies’ that result from their individual life experience, in the context of dual processes of learning. In all, these studies are not only interested in different objects of integration, but also that they respond to different conceptions about learning and knowledge.

1.3.3

The Problem of Omitting the Explanandum

Despite the acknowledged relevance of integrative learning in T-VET and the continuously growing research efforts in this field, little has been said about what such integration entails or how it proceeds (or should proceed) (Barber, 2012). According to Barber (2012), while previous research has attempted to describe the process of integration, this has mainly resulted in inventories of facilitators (e.g.,

8

1 Introduction

mediating activities and resources). Such inventories, although representing a significant contribution to current knowledge, do not provide a description of a process. It follows that a distinction needs to be made between the facilitators of a process and the description of a process: “The sort of practices described as integrative [. . .] may facilitate integration of learning, but they do not describe an individual’s learning process per se” (Barber, 2012, p. 591). But, if mediators and facilitators are just process conditions which do not describe the process itself, what does? Unfortunately, this question has been left unanswered. For example, past endeavours to theorise the ‘integration of learning’ in particular contexts and various learning environments (Barber, 2012), only provide us with hierarchically ordered ‘types of integration’, while still failing to unveil what the concept of integration conceals. Therefore, it appears that there is a missing conceptualisation of integrative learning which is preventing further advancement. Indeed, despite the important existing knowledge about what facilitates integration (e.g., Choy & Sappa, 2016; Ellström, 2001; Fischer et al., 2004; Sappa et al., 2016; Schaap et al., 2012; Tynjälä, 2008), little is known about the fundamental question of what integration involves and how it develops. Previous research focused on the contributing conditions to integration without having or proposing an explanandum about the very object of study. This lack of knowledge represents an omission which is preventing further pedagogical advancement when faced to challenges (e.g., coping with fast technological evolution, as well as making the most of increasingly diversified learning environments and the potential synergies that emerge from combinations of such environments). We contend that new insights into the integrative learning process are required if we are to provide a more robust underpinning to new pedagogical approaches, for example, when designing for learning and instruction in T-VET. This statement finds (direct and indirect) support in the literature (e.g., Guile, 2006; Schaap et al., 2012; Winch, 2010). Moreover, such an omission appears to result from an unresolved epistemological debate about theory and practice (Hiim, 2017). Indeed, this unresolved epistemological disagreement has been held responsible for inconsistencies in the conceptualisation of vocational or professional knowledge (Hiim, 2017). In general, perspectives that are non-conducive to generating new insights into integration, fall into one of two extreme positions (Guile, 2006, 2010); at one extreme, theory and practice are taken as ontologically different (Loeffler, 2018) while, at the other, theory is overshadowed by practice (Guile, 2006, 2010). It follows that the perspective we adopt matters.

1.3.4

Raising the Central Question

Given the omission problem and the aforementioned implications for education and for educational research, this work represents an effort to demystify the concept of integrative learning by focusing on theory and practice as core objects of such integration. In keeping with this, the central question that guided our investigation is double:

1.4 Addressing the Central Question: The Studies

9

What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) and how does it develop?

Such fundamental question comprises three aspects: an ontological problem about the very nature of integration, a need to state what the objects of integration are, and a call for description of how integration develops or proceeds (in this work, in terms of specific variations over a limited period). In addressing this double question, our study aimed to understand integration through an initial theoretical approach and a subsequent empirical approach in a learning context that is appropriate and conducive; these features we found in the learning context of Chemical Processing Technology (CPT). An elaboration of the rationale for the selection of this particular context for these empirical studies can be found later in this chapter. This book is organised into six chapters. Following the introduction in Chap. 1, Chap. 2 presents our first study, which corresponds to an overview of the literature relevant to this book. Subsequently, Chaps. 3, 4, and 5 correspond to our empirical investigations in the CPT context. Chapter 6 synthesises the preceding chapters and concludes with the relationship between the individual studies. Finally, an overall discussion is presented in Chap. 6 where we elaborate on the implications, limitations and opportunities, and close with a final reflection.

1.4

Addressing the Central Question: The Studies

This work can be positioned in various ways. In terms of research paradigms, it is situated in the philosophical and educational theory strands. In terms of disciplines involved, it regards the problem of integration from an interdisciplinary approach (Ivanitskaya et al., 2002), by bringing together considerations from Epistemology (as a part of Philosophy) with considerations from Cognitive Psychology in an interactive way. In terms of areas of research in TVET, it fits in the areas of ‘competence and expertise’ and ‘learning and teaching’, according to the TVET research framework (Rauner et al., 2008). This book was devised to answer the central question raised about the ILTP and consists of four studies. Here, we introduce the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the studies in this book, including their specific focus and aims, as well as the methodological approaches used to address the research questions. The specific findings, conclusions and discussions are reserved for the corresponding chapters. In Chap. 2 we review the existing theoretical and empirical knowledge on professional knowledge and integration. This deals with perspectives on professional and vocational knowledge and aims to expose the epistemological roots of such knowledge, with particular interest on the perspectives on theory and practice, and their relationship. This chapter responds to the broad research question: What do we know about the theory-practice integration? While reviewing the state-of-the-art knowledge on theory-practice integration, this chapter also intends to assist the

10

1 Introduction

justification for the overall project. First, the epistemological perspectives on professional knowledge are described and the different stances discussed with the aim of adopting one that is appropriate for conceptualisation and further empirical research. Insights into the distinctive logics and the epistemological beliefs are provided. Finally, the theory of Inferentialism is presented along with its relation to learning and instruction. After introducing the existing theoretical perspectives and empirical knowledge base, Chap. 3 focuses on the research methodology. This chapter presents and elaborates on methodological aspects concerning the entire book. We first make explicit the assumptions that have informed our methodological choices and, consistently, we present a rationale for the selection of methods. Secondly, we introduce the methods used in the three empirical studies, while we reserve a more detailed elaboration on the procedures to the corresponding chapters. Finally, we focus on the instructional context that hosted our empirical work. Here, we provide a description of the context, next to a discussion of its relevance, and the rationale for its selection for our project. The instructional context of the empirical investigation (i.e., Chaps. 4 and 5) consists of two educational programmes in the field of chemical process technology (CPT) at both post-secondary and higher education levels. Graduates from both levels obtain the qualification of process operator in the chemical processing industries. These programmes combine learning and instruction in various learning environments: the classroom setting at school, the laboratory, the simulated processing plant and the actual workplace in accordance with a cognitiveapprenticeship approach. An extended description of the instructional context and its actors is provided further in this chapter, at this point we clarify the role of the context in this work and provide a rationale for the selection of this particular context. The broader context and the particular settings selected for each study have an instrumental role (i.e., the selection of this context constitutes a methodological consideration). The selected context is appropriate for the study of the theorypractice integration as a phenomenon for a number of reasons, as follows: (a) the integration of theory and practice is a deliberate goal in these schools and workplaces, (b) the learning programmes are organised to promote an integration that is concurrent with learning rather than sequential, and (c) CPT is built on a vast and well established body of knowledge that provides rich content material for research. These reasons combined make the CPT instructional context exemplary. In this context we conducted an investigation using a data-driven approach with the purpose of conceptualising the ILTP construct. Such empirical conceptualisation grasps the key actors’ conceptions and beliefs in a particular context; understanding their conceptualisation of the integrative learning prevents us from imposing extraneous definitions (either originating from the literature, or from the researcher’s preconceptions) that would bias the interpretation of any further empirical results. This investigation was divided into two studies based on a grounded theory approach; both studies are presented in Chap. 4. The first study focuses on interpersonal epistemological beliefs which include conceptions of theory, practice, and

1.4 Addressing the Central Question: The Studies

11

integration (Orozco et al., 2020). The aim was to demystify the concept of integrative learning by focusing on theory and practice as core objects of such integration. Here, two research questions guided the investigation: (1) How do key actors in T-VET conceive theoretical and practical knowledge? and (2) What are these actors’ views on the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge? Here ‘views’ refers to conceptions and beliefs. For this we selected a qualitative approach assisted by focus groups discussions and thematic, inductive analysis. On the other hand, in the second study reported in Chap. 4 we pursued the data-driven efforts with the purpose to advance an empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP construct in initial technical vocational learning. This was to reveal the actors’ views on integrative learning as a process and as an intended outcome in initial T-VET (Orozco et al., 2019). Here, the research question was: What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice in technical vocational education and training? While the methods used in the first and second studies are almost the same, the latter also includes cross-sectional observations in the natural instructional setting. Unlike Chap. 4, Chap. 5 presents a theory-driven investigation. Here, we overtly adopt an inferentialist non-dualistic position, not only as a perspective on theory and practice but also as a theoretical framework. This means that the inferentialist theory informed our methodology in a consistent manner, from the ontological and epistemological positioning to the techniques for data collection and analysis. Both theoretical and empirical support for adopting this perspective and theory was found in the literature study (Chap. 2) and in the initial empirical studies (Chap. 4), respectively. Chapter 5 deals with integration in terms of social reasoning and focuses exclusively on verbal utterances (i.e., discursive exchanges). The primary purpose being to cast light on the process of integration; this refers to a description of how the integrative learning process develops in terms of specific variations over a limited period. The secondary purpose was to test whether the study of theory-practice integration can be achieved by using our operationalisation of Inferentialism and related Normative Pragmatism (these theories are presented in Chap. 2). The research question guiding the investigation was: How are theoretical and practical judgements brought together in discursive reasoning? This phenomenological investigation used longitudinal observations in the natural instructional setting and further content-conversational analysis according to a mixed method approach. In short, in Chap. 5 we depart from a particular pragmatist view on integrative learning in terms of increasing mastery through social reasoning, we advance an operationalisation of the inferentialist theory for our research purpose, and we offer a plausible description of the integrative learning process. Finally, Fig. 1.1 is an illustration of how each study relates to the overall problem. Together, the four studies seek to build a line of research that is conducive to unravelling the ILTP (i.e., its conceptualisation and progress). This line starts with attention to the epistemological roots of the problem, and a concern for people’s epistemological beliefs with a focus on the structural aspects. Along this line, which

12

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1 The topic of each study building a single line of research

addresses the topic of integrative learning at a micro-level of instruction, we explore different aspects of learning to finally concentrate on the cognitive process, be it both individual and collaborative, in terms of social reasoning. As the figure shows, the selection of the focus and framework for Chap. 5 finds theoretical and empirical support in the preceding chapters. The purpose of this synthesis and clarification is to ‘set the tone’, that is, to prepare the readers’ expectations for the coming chapters. In the final chapter of this book, we build on this overview with an emphasis on the results of the studies and their contribution to the overall book aims. Having introduced the problem formulation (i.e., the topic and aim of this book, the main argument for its significance and how the constituting studies were approached to contribute to the whole), we introduce the empirical context in the next subsection. This first chapter concludes with an illustration of the theorypractice integration during social reasoning.

1.6 From Physico-Chemical Properties to Process Safety Measures

1.5

13

The Empirical Context

Common to both empirical studies is the context in which the investigations took place, i.e., alternating school-based and work-based learning (part of the broader technical vocational education). This setup is often referred to as ‘dual-learning’, and although this term can be used to describe other educational setups, this terminology has been adopted to remain aligned with the participants. The investigations took place in a post-secondary setting (Chap. 4) and in higher education (Chaps. 4 and 5) and, more specifically, in the field of chemical process technology (CPT). As previously noted, this context was important for the research goals. This is because several features, such as the dual character of the learning programme, the rich knowledge content in CPT and the commitment to assist the students’ development as knowledge workers, made this particular learning context appropriate and conducive for the study of theory-practice integration. Students who successfully complete any of the CPT programmes concerned, become qualified process operators which enables them to work in a variety of industrial sectors, including petrochemical, chemical, pharmaceutical, and energy recuperation. Broadly speaking, ‘dual learning’ refers to an instructional context that consists primarily of two learning environments (i.e., the school and the workplace). In this work, ‘the school’ regards non-compulsory formal education, while ‘the workplace’ is an industrial site acting as an education provider in collaboration with schools. In the workplace, the instruction basically follows a cognitive-apprenticeship approach. In this micro-level context, the key actors are the students and their instructors. Chapter 3 is the first of three chapters reporting our empirical work; here we discuss the role of the context in this book, present a description of how teaching and learning develop in these instructional settings, explain how organisations and individuals were recruited to participate in these investigations and, finally, offer a detailed description of the research settings. In particular, the ‘thick description’ represents the complexity of the situation (Cohen et al., 2011), which supports the methodological integrity of this work. In the next subsection, a conversation between a student and the instructors in this context is presented. It provides evidence for the progressive integration of theory and practice.

1.6

From Physico-Chemical Properties to Process Safety Measures

The following dialogue extracts are from conversations held in the control room of a chemical manufacturing unit during an apprenticeship stage. The conversations exemplify how social reasoning progresses as the speakers exchange claims that are used in a theoretical or in a practical way. In the first extract, the student discusses a case of leak detection with the tutor (visiting teacher) and the company-based

14

1 Introduction

mentor. It concerns the potential leak of flammable substances from a heat exchanger that is mounted inside a cabin. The first time the topic is addressed: Tutor Student Tutor Student Tutor Student Tutor Student Tutor Student Mentor Tutor Mentor

Tutor Mentor Student Tutor

This one... What kind of ‘quality control’ is it, I wondered. A TOC measurement. And what’s ‘a TOC measurement’? Total organic carbon. It measures organic compounds, in parts per million. Yes. That’s a . . . Does it measure in a gas [phase] or in a liquid [phase]? In... in liquid. You don’t have any gases there. But then... I don’t know how it works in that case. So you have a heat exchanger and, if there is a leak, ... Yes, but there’s no formation of gases there. So if there’s a leak, the product won’t... Am I doing something wrong? [addressing the mentor] I don’t know... it measures constantly. Yes, it measures constantly, doesn’t it? [There’s no formation of gases] if there isn’t any liquid in the cabin. So it is a gas detector. It simply measures [TOC] in the air inside the cabin [in the event the heat exchanger leaks]. Yes, I think so too. It measures TOC in there. Yes, because the substance will always evaporate a little... Yes, OK! And certainly at that temperature. You’ve said it yourself: the substance goes beyond its autoignition temperature. So, it will evaporate, won’t it?

Later in the conversation: Student

This is a safety protection measure. A detector is installed in the cabin of the heat exchanger... thus not in the heat exchanger itself but in the cabin. If there is leakage, the detector is there to detect it. And then nitrogen will be sent to the cabin so that the oxygen is displaced, and the risk of explosion is reduced. [Otherwise,] given that you have a temperature of 250 degrees in here, the substance will possibly ignite.

If these speakers were asked to reflect on their conversation and to distinguish whether they were employing theoretical or practical knowledge, they would have difficulty in giving a clear-cut answer. They would resort to distinguishing criteria (e.g., in which learning environment one comes to learn something, either the school or the workplace) that eventually do not yield two mutually exclusive categories such as theory or practice. The actors have a non-dualistic view on theory and practice. Although they may be unable to provide reliable recounts about any distinction, they do not attempt to deny such a distinction, while also perceiving that an amalgam would not be the case either. These assertions are based on findings from our first empirical investigation (Chap. 4). The conversations illustrate how social reasoning progresses over time. It consists of claims that the speakers employ in a theoretical manner [the substance goes beyond its autoignition temperature] or in a practical manner [nitrogen will be sent to the cabin so that the oxygen is displaced]. Moreover, such claims may simply add non-contradictory information [It measures organic compounds, in

References

15

parts per million.] or, alternatively relate to each other in a logical manner. In the latter case, the claims play the role of a justification [because the substance will always evaporate a little], an implication [So it will evaporate] or a critique [You don’t have any gases there]. Where theoretically used claims and practically used claims have a logical relationship, we call this phenomenon ‘integration of theory and practice’. Whenever such integration proceeds by way of reasoning that becomes more complex, more diverse, and more encompassing (thus denoting an increase in mastery of the use of concepts within those claims), this phenomenon is known as ‘integrative learning’ [‘a TOC measurement’ versus ‘This is a safety protection measure.’] These episodes concern a scenario where there is a risk of leakage from a heat exchanger resulting in an accidental release of volatile (and thus highly flammable) hydrocarbons. The first episode centres on the detection instrument [a TOC measurement] (in relation to physico-chemical properties and operating process conditions); it shows how the actors were initially unable to explain [I don’t know...] how a gas detector could work in a process segment expected to handle only liquid hydrocarbons. This part of the conversation contains several questions and theoretically used claims that introduce justifications and implications. Throughout the conversation the actors engage in collaborative reasoning and eventually come to understand [Yes, OK!] the application of the gas detector. The second episode goes beyond the mere detection problem to concentrate on a safety protection measure, which is a more encompassing concept [a safety protection measure]. Here, theoretically used and practically used claims are integrated (i.e., related to each other logically), as the speakers employ them in justifications [given that you have a temperature of 250 degrees] and implications [the substance will possibly ignite]. The comparison of the first and the second way of reasoning evidences a qualitative variation. This suggests how the process of integrative learning proceeds, i.e., a progressive incorporation of practically used claims to theoretically used claims, while all the claims increasingly pertain to new and more encompassing concepts. This is indicative of growing mastery, in terms of furtherreaching understanding over time. The preceding illustration and its discussion introduce the reader to the content of this work. We return to this event in Chap. 5.

References Baartman, L. K., & De Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590–617. Beckett, D. (2000). Making workplace learning explicit: An epistemology of practice for the whole person. Westminster Studies in Education, 23(1), 41–53. Billett, S. (2009). Personal epistemologies, work and learning. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.001

16

1 Introduction

Bremer, R. (2005). Developing a modern curriculum for the automobile industry. In European perspectives on learning at work-the acquisition of work process knowledge (pp. 323–338). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Cedefop (2015). Vocational pedagogies and benefits for learners: practices and challenges in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cedefop research paper; No 47. Cedefop. (2019). The changing nature and role of vocational education and training in Europe. Volume 6: Vocationally oriented education and training at higher education level. Expansion and diversification in European countries. Publications Office. Cedefop research paper; No 70. http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/02004 Choy, S., & Sappa, V. (2016). Australian stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting vocational learning at TAFE and workplaces. International Journal of Training Research, 14(2), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2016.1200237 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge. Cort, P., Volmari, K., & Härkönen, A. (2004). PROFF: Professionalisation of VET: Teachers for the future. EUR-OP. Derry, J. (2016). Inferentialism and education. In Philosophy of education Society of Great Britain annual conference (pp. 1–3). New College. Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–435. Fischer, M., Boreham, N. C., & Nyhan, B. (2004). European perspectives on learning at work: The acquisition of work process knowledge (Vol. 56). European Communities. Gessler, M., & Howe, F. (2015). From the reality of work to grounded work-based learning in German vocational education and training: Background, concept and tools. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 2(3 (Special Issue)), 214–238. Greinert, W. D., & Varsori, A. (2004). Towards a history of vocational education and training (VET) in Europe in a comparative perspective: Proceedings of the first international conference October 2002, Florence. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Guile, D. (2006). Learning across contexts. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 251–268. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy (Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Tynjälä, P., & Kiviniemi, U. (2011). Integrative pedagogy in practicum: Meeting the second order paradox of teacher education. In M. Mattsson, T. V. Eilertsen, & D. Rorrison (Eds.), A practicum turn in teacher education (pp. 91–112). Sense. Hiim, H. (2017). Ensuring curriculum relevance in vocational education and training: Epistemological perspectives in a curriculum research project. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 4(1), 1–19. Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1021105309984 Kamarainen, P., Attwell, G., & Brown, A. (2002). Transformation of learning in education and training: Key qualifications revisited (CEDEFOP reference series). Bernan Associates. Krichewsky, L., Frommberger, D., & Milolaza, A. (2010). Learning outcomes approaches in VET curricula: A comparative analysis of nine European countries. Cedefop. Loeffler, R. (2018). Brandom. Key contemporary thinkers. Polity Press. Lutgens, G., & Mulder, M. (2002). Bridging the gap between theory and practice in Dutch vocational education. European Journal Vocational Training, 25, 34–38. ISSN 0378-5068. Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., Kullenberg, T., & Curtis, K. (2019). Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 7, E20–E62. Neuweg, G. H. (2004). Tacit knowing and implicit learning. In M. Fischer, N. Boreham, & B. Niham (Eds.), European perspectives on learning at work: The acquisition of work process knowledge (pp. 130–147). Office for Official Publications for the European Communities.

References

17

Orozco, M., Gijbels, D., & Timmerman, C. (2019). Empirical conceptualisation of integrative learning. A focus on theory-practice integration in technical vocational education and training. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09223-2 Orozco, M., Gijbels, D., & Timmerman, C. (2020). Conceiving the relationship between theory and practice in T-VET. An in-depth study on key actors’ epistemological perspectives. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1715468 Rauner, F., & Maclean, R. (2008). Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (Vol. 49). Dordrecht: Springer. Sappa, V., Choy, S., & Aprea, C. (2016). Stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting learning at different sites in two national VET systems. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 68(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2016.1201845 Schaap, H., Baartman, L., & de Bruijn, E. (2012). Students’ learning processes during school-based learning and workplace learning in vocational education: A review. Vocations and Learning, 5(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9069-2 Sloane, P. F. E. (2014). Professional education between school and practice settings. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 397–425). Springer. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.12.001 Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z Tynjälä, P., & Gijbels, D. (2012). Changing world – Changing pedagogy. In P. Tynjälä, M.-L. Stenström, & M. Saarnivaara (Eds.), Transitions and transformations in education (pp. 205–222). Springer. Tynjälä, P., Välimaa, J., & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education, 46(2), 147–166. Tynjälä, P., Slotte, V., Nieminen, J., Lonka, K., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). From university to working life: Graduates’ workplace skills in practice. In P. Tynjälä, J. Välimaa, & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Higher education and working life: Collaborations, confrontations and challenges (pp. 73–88). Elsevier. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers & Education, 64, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025 Winch, C. (2010). Dimensions of expertise. Continuum.

Chapter 2

Overview of the Literature

2.1

Epistemological Roots of Professional Knowledge

This section is about perspectives on vocational or professional knowledge; it discusses both the epistemological roots of those perspectives and their implications for curriculum and pedagogy. The discussion proceeds in terms of (a) what constitutes vocational or professional knowledge and (b) in which ways one comes to ‘acquire’ such knowledge. We use the term ‘acquire’ provisionally and for simplicity only; depending on the learning metaphor adopted, knowledge may not just be ‘transferred and acquired’, but ‘constructed’ or even ‘mastered’. These topics relate directly to the central question of this book. When we present the existing perspectives on what constitutes vocational or professional knowledge, we are dealing with the outcome of the ILTP (among other possible outcomes), i.e., we are dealing with how this outcome can be conceived or, yet in other terms, we are projecting the literature into what the outcome of the ILTP is taken to be. Similarly, when we present the current understanding on the ways one comes to ‘acquire’ professional knowledge, we are exposing ideas on how the ILTP proceeds.

2.1.1

Historical Reviews

In looking for the meaning of vocational or professional knowledge, both Guile (2006) and Hiim (2017) have reviewed the legacies of various philosophers (but also sociologists and psychologists) to distinguish several rationales in terms of their epistemological roots (as well as their implications on curricula and instructional design). Our reading of these reviews (which we do not intend to reproduce here), is that each distinctive rationale, or cluster thereof: (a) reflects how vocational knowledge is understood and thus a different level of pragmatism, (b) holds a unit of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7_2

19

20

2 Overview of the Literature

Table 2.1 Clustered rationales based on Hiim (2017) and Guile’s (2006) historical reviews Clustered rationales (epistemological perspectives) Rationalist separation Purposeful participation

Intentional experience

Reflective experimentation Cultural mediation

Process-based conceptions Social-realist stance Dialectic stance

Social practice and inference

The ways in which vocational knowledge can be ‘acquired’ Instruction of theory followed by application into practice Learning through accumulation of examples; guided participation in real situations Participation in projects (authentic problems); purposeful and intentional experience Reflective conversations essential tasks; conceptual framing of situations Using symbolic, cultural systems to e.g., frame, evaluate and act; conceptual restructuring Competence-based learning, outcome-oriented General explanations alternated with location of particular instances Different forms of knowledge never acquired independently of one another Social practices of giving and asking for reasons; making inferential relations

Unit of meaning Concepts and structures (representations) A situation

A challenge, a problem

Knowing-inaction Concepts and systems of judgments Contribution to a production process Reality

Synthesis of knowing-what and knowinghow Concepts and conceptualised experience

Vocational knowledge seen as an ability Solve a problem (application) Engage concurrently in: Involvement, sensitivity, instinct, intellectual reason Frame and solve authentic problems with further reaching relevance ‘Simultaneously’: frame a situation, act, consider alternatives, critique Informed by cultural systems: frame, act and evaluate relying on prior experience Participate in a specific workflow in response to its needs Not specified

Not specified

Use concepts to make inferences, explain episodes and justify what one says

meaning that is not always amenable to operationalisation, (c) proposes how knowledge is to be acquired, and (d) takes a position (overtly or not) on the integration of kinds of knowing (e.g., theoretical and practical). This last point is of utmost importance, as it will be elaborated below. From the above-mentioned reviews, several rationales with own epistemological roots can be distinguished. Each rationale is (or may be seen as) a reaction to the preceding one. However, this building on each other, does not necessarily mean that the previous rationales have disappeared; on the contrary, the rationales coexist. Table 2.1 clusters such rationales into perspectives and shows, firstly, that each one distinctively reflects how vocational knowledge is understood. In so doing, each

2.1 Epistemological Roots of Professional Knowledge

21

perspective presents a different degree of pragmatism. Secondly, each one holds a unit of meaning (i.e., smallest meaningful chunk), thus presenting a different extent to which it can be operationalised. And, finally, each one proposes how knowledge is to be ‘acquired’ and, therefore, it may be linked to a particular learning theory and pedagogy. From this, it follows that each perspective takes a position (overtly or not) on the integration of kinds of knowing (e.g., theoretical, and practical). This latter point is crucial; it means that the various rationales have different power to resolve the theory-practice duality (i.e., they are not conducive to understanding ILTP in the same extent). In sum, if we are to understand how students learn theory and practice in an integrative way, the perspective we adopt makes a difference. Table 2.1 does not pretend to be exhaustive, rather to illustrate different rationales and their implications. The first mentioned perspective, for example, refers to the ‘rationalist separation’ of theory and practice. This rationale presents the strongest theory-practice dichotomy, the unit of meaning are concepts seen as mental representations, and vocational knowledge is mainly seen as the ability to solve a problem (Guile, 2006). Much of today’s curricula in VET are based on such instrumental problem-solving and the principle of mere application (Hiim, 2017). In an attempt to resolve the theory-practice dichotomy, the following rationales become more pragmatic. For example, in the ‘situated learning movement’ (evoked by the ‘purposeful participation’ and the ‘intentional experience’ rationales), vocational knowledge is seen as the ability to participate in authentic problem-solving with others (Guile, 2006). Later, we find the ‘process-based conceptions’ which deal with the widespread notion of ‘work-process-knowledge’. The main critique to this notion is that theoretical knowledge is ‘glossed over by practical knowledge (Guile, 2006), meaning that there is an overemphasis on practice at the expense of theory. Eventually, these rationales turn (reputedly) excessively pragmatic, thus resulting in oversimplifications of the relationship between theory and practice (Guile, 2006). Such oversimplifications, instead of resolving the dualism, build a black box around the problem and eventually passes the integration problem to the learner, who must see to reconcile apparent inconsistences on their own. Therefore, it seems necessary to give up some pragmatism and, while adopting a non-dualistic position, acknowledge that theory and practice are distinctive at an analytical level. This is what Guile (2006, 2010) does when he suggests (echoing Robert Brandom’s inferentialist ideas) that vocational knowledge is the ability to use concepts to make inferences. In sum, the historical review reveals that several rationales on vocational or professional knowledge coexist. This can be seen as an ‘epistemological disagreement’ (Hiim, 2017) that obscures the very goal of VET (given that the goal depends on the rationale considered). Therefore, it is important to understand the various rationales and their implications in order to adopt one. The implications of adopting a particular epistemological position on vocational or professional knowledge become visible in curriculum design, in the instructional actors’ perception of curriculum relevance, and in actual educational practices affecting how we learn and how we teach. In terms of the central questions of this book, the preceding conclusions suggest that several rationales coexist about the expected outcomes of

22

2 Overview of the Literature

the ILTP and, consistently, that there are several parallel ideas about the progress of the learning and integration process. It follows that the epistemological disagreement signalled by Hiim (2017) can be extended to the conceptualisation of integration. This has implications for research on the integration of theory and practice; it is important to adopt a rationale whose unit of meaning allows for operationalisation, and whose conception of theory and practice allows to grasp their interdependency.

2.1.2

From Dualism to Inferentialism

The broad idea of differentiating ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ without incurring in dualism, can be understood by using the concept of ‘unity of process’. Vygotsky uses the term (as a part of his theory of cultural mediation) as opposed to ‘unity of identity’ (Vygotsky, 1987). In essence, although two processes manifest a unity (they are intimately connected to one another), they do not manifest an identity (they do not correspond directly with one another) (Guile, 2006). According to this view, both forms of knowledge are the product of human activity and, while it makes sense to distinguish different types of activity analytically from one another, this does not imply a dualism (Guile, 2006). Echoing Vygotsky about the relation of theoretical and everyday concepts, Guile proposes that “we do not have to abandon this distinction because it does not reflect a dualism, rather it reflects the different outcomes that flow from the specialised activities in which we engage” (Guile, 2006, p. 256). This epistemological position enables us to discern not just what is specific to theory and to practice but, also, their interdependency. Indeed, according to Guile “it is possible to formulate a non-dualistic conception of the relation between mind and world that [...] allows us to grasp the interdependency of theory and practice” (Guile, 2006, p. 251). Such formulation allies Lev Vygotsky’s concept of mediation to John McDowell’s revision of the concept of ‘space of reasons’ and to Robert Brandom’s idea of ‘Inferentialism’ (Guile, 2006, 2010). We present Brandom’s inferentialist theory (Brandom, 1994, 1995, 2000) later in this chapter.

2.1.3

What Does One Integrate? The Objects of Integration

The particular interest in the integration of theory and practice should not blind one to other objects of integration relevant to T-VET. Indeed, it may be expected that students need to (deliberately) build relationships between, e.g.: various contexts, disciplines, learning strategies, rationales, conceptions, and concepts. This section deals with the notion of objects of integration to raise awareness that theory and practice may not be the only objects that need to be integrated. Although the focus of

2.1 Epistemological Roots of Professional Knowledge

23

the present work lies on theory and practice as ‘that what is to be integrated’, we also acknowledge alternative objects to account for the complexity of the integrative learning problem. The idea of objects of integration other than theory and practice is supported by other authors. Several pairs of objects have been called to attention, each time along with a grounded need to integrate them, for example: fragmented disciplines (e.g., Gessler & Moreno Herrera, 2015; Guile & Griffiths, 2001), explicit and implicit knowledge (e.g., Beckett, 2000; Eraut, 2000; Neuweg & Fothe, 2011), formal and informal learning approaches (e.g., Guile & Griffiths, 2001; Tynjälä, 1997, 2008), individual and collective learning (e.g., Billett, 2004; Fischer et al., 2004), learning environments such as the school and the workplace (e.g., Ellström, 2001; Gessler & Moreno Herrera, 2015; Guile & Griffiths, 2001; Jørgensen, 2004; Sappa et al., 2016; Tynjälä, 2008), rationales, (e.g., Sych, 2016), otherwise fragmented events (e.g., Songer & Linn, 1991), horizontal and vertical forms of knowledge and discourses (e.g., Bernstein, 1999; Young, 2003a, b), what we know and how we use what we know (e.g., Guile, 2006), concepts and experience (e.g., Beckett, 2000), theoretical and practical knowledge (e.g., Barber, 2012; Guile, 2006; Jørgensen, 2004). In Chap. 4 (Sects. 4.2.2 and 4.2.3), we briefly revisit theoretical conceptions of forms of knowledge as objects of integration. Other proposed objects are not necessarily incompatible with our focus on theory and practice, rather they may harmonise to grant different dimensions to integration. Indeed, we see no contraction in those pairs of objects, rather we see that the efforts to integrate one pair of objects may be compatible with the integration of another pair. However, it is very important not to equate similar distinctions to each other, for example ‘formal and informal’ equated to ‘school and workplace’, or to ‘theory and practice’, as such parallelisms may be more obscuring than clarifying (Young & Muller, 2014). Indeed, there is a risk of building shortcuts among those paired objects, by which one can e.g., erroneously attribute formality and theory exclusively to the school as learning environment or, similarly, erroneously attribute informality and practice exclusively to the workplace as learning environment. It must be noted that the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge, as elements of an encompassing integrated professional knowledge, is not the only possibility when aiming to understand the integrative learning process. Alternatively, one could resort to Russell's (1912) distinction between ‘knowledge by acquaintance’ and ‘knowledge by description’. Building on this, epistemologists now usually recognise three kinds of knowledge (i.e., propositional knowledge, know-how and knowledge by acquaintance) that take different places and different relationships in curricular hierarchies (Winch, 2013). We contend that, although both approaches to the objects of integration may be valuable and highly compatible, it is important to select one and stick to the selection. We also contend that the approach in terms of ‘theory and practice’ is closer to practitioners’ vocabulary and, therefore, research findings and conclusions are more readily accessible to them. Finally, we deliberately avoid prescribing a definition of our core objects of integration, i.e., ‘theory’ or theoretical knowledge and ‘practice’ or practical knowledge. There are two reasons for this. One reason is that we do not wish to impose our

24

2 Overview of the Literature

own conceptions and beliefs, as this would bias our interpretations of the coming empirical data. Instead, we choose to find out (in our earlier investigation) what the conceptions and beliefs of the actors in our context of study are. The second reason is that we wish to be consistent with the inferentialist perspective and, therefore, adopt the position in our latter investigation that theory and practice are only to be distinguished in use (at an analytical level), rather than treating them as ontologically different entities.

2.1.4

Is Integration Desirable and Attainable? About Logics and Beliefs

Too often, when dealing with the topic of theory-practice integration, we start from the assumptions that such integration is desirable and attainable. In this section, we question those assumptions by raising two potential obstacles (although there might be more). A potential obstacle to the desirability of integration resides in people’s epistemological beliefs. A potential obstacle to the attainability of integration lies in the idea of distinctive logics, in so far these logics remain unreconcilable. We elaborate this latter point first.

2.1.4.1

Different Logics

The question about attainability of integration of theory and practice concerns whether ‘what counts as valid’ in either case can be reconciled. This is a vast topic that extends into theories of truth and, therefore, we can only touch on a few elements at this point; the purposes being: to show that integration cannot be taken for granted, to contribute to understanding why we have risen the attainability question and to create awareness of the extents of this question. In any environment, one uses concepts to explain and justify to others the reasons for what one says or does. In other words, people build judgements with concepts and, in so doing, they locate those concepts in a ‘space of reasons’ (in inferentialist terms). But such space of reasons is imbedded in a system of judgements, i.e., a normative of what counts as valid in a particular profession -including purpose and relevance of particular actions, and techniques- (Guile, 2010). This, however, is not to claim that professionals are always able to articulate the reasons for their judgements in the ‘flux of working’, as much judgement is often implicit or tacit in nature (Eraut, 2000; Polanyi, 1962). Within such a particular conglomerate of reasons, it may be possible to analytically distinguish reasons that are primarily practical or theoretical. Yet, regardless of whether the analytical distinction is always possible and/or stable, the inferences made on the bases of those concepts will most probably be judged on different criteria, e.g.: academic assessment criteria (or domain criteria) on one hand, and

2.1 Epistemological Roots of Professional Knowledge

25

everyday practice criteria (or peer criteria) on the other. This is key to conclude that systems of judgements are dependent on the environment in which the space of reasons is shared with others: what counts as valid is not absolute (Guile, 2010). The question raises of whether the variability of what counts as valid is located at the level of the premises and their warrants (in terms of a non-deductive argument which includes an explanation) or, alternatively, at the level of the formal structure of the argument. It seems that there is no agreement on this: some authors (in differentiating truth-seeking logics from result-seeking logics) defend the position that the difference resides at the level of the structure of the argument (Beckett, 2000), whereas other authors (in differentiating axioms and maxims) promote the idea of differences at the level of the premises (Guile, 2010). In the latter case, Guile is echoing Brandom’s ideas on the viability to judge inferences by analysing natural language (further explained in Chap. 5), and on truth-seeking by material inference (i.e., not necessarily a good inference based on its logical form, but a good inference based on the non-logical contents of its premises and conclusion). According to Beckett, we are forced to cope with two distinctive logics (or distinctive reasoning): truth-seeking in academics, and result-seeking in the workplace (Beckett, 2000). According to this, learning in formal education and work-based learning simply proceed via different logics. Beckett, referring to Ryle, shows by means of elementary logics that the logic of the workplace is formally fallacious (i.e., consisting of bad inferences based on their logical form). Alternatively, on this issue about distinctive ways of reasoning, Guile appeals to the tacit dimension of knowledge. He argues that there can be a tacit dimension to our use of different forms of knowledge (Guile, 2010) and that one way to clarify this issue is to distinguish between ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ reasoning in sciencebased and profession-based epistemic activity. The former reasoning is claimed to be based on ‘axioms’ (i.e., universal rules that guide the research process and the judgements that scientists make), while the latter would be based on ‘maxims’ (i.e., paradigmatic, or exemplary cases that define the meaning of the maxim and the force of its applicability). By and large, the former is characterised by the use of theoretical concepts, discourses and methods as ‘axioms’ [...] that is, the universal rules that guide the research process and the judgements that scientists make. This process of deliberation in scientific research could, as Polanyi observed, occur explicitly as scientists discuss or argue with one another, or implicitly as individual scientists gradually comprehend the meaning and implications of scientific data. In contrast, professions-based epistemic activity is characterised by the use of ‘maxims’, that is, paradigmatic cases that define their meaning and the force of their applicability [...]. This form of reasoning – as Nerland and Jensen demonstrate – occurs as professionals consider the case in hand, select from among the features of the situation those which they feel are significant, compare them with counter or similar examples, as well as with their own experiences, and use this process of individual and collective deliberation to gain insights into how to proceed. This process of deliberation and judgment is [...] similar to and different from theoretical reasoning. It is similar in that it presupposes a conceptuallystructured mind that understands a professional practice and how to make judgements in accordance with the standard of that practice. Where practical reasoning is different from theoretical reasoning, however, is that professionals are not engaged in making judgement that presupposed to hold good spatially and temporally, instead they are making judgements to address the problem in hand. (Guile, 2010, pp. 58–59)

26

2 Overview of the Literature

As expressed before, the integration of theory and practice cannot be taken for granted. In considering the preceding paragraphs, it may be concluded that distinctive systems of judgements, distinctive assessment criteria and distinctive logics can not be fully reconciled. Therefore, we propose that integration is not regarded as an attainable goal but, instead, as an aim to strive for. Further in this chapter, we present Brandom’s theory of Normative Pragmatism (Brandom, 1994, 2000). With this theory, Brandom dissolves the problem of distinctive and non-reconcilable logics; his pragmatic answer relies on the idea of ‘deontic scorekeeping’ (which does not rely on a priori logical rules or assessment criteria, rather on people’s endorsements and attributions of entitlements and commitments). Briefly, deontic scorekeeping can be understood as “the constant calibration of meaning through communication and dialogue” (Derry, 2016, p. 7). Further in this chapter, the section about Inferentialism clarifies the concept of ‘deontic scorekeeping’.

2.1.4.2

Epistemological Beliefs

When we pose that integration should be considered as an aim to strive for, we are assuming that this integration is desirable and longed-for by the various actors and stakeholders in a particular and broad instructional context (one which includes the workplace as learning environment). Rather than entering debates about power relations, that deal with the idea that certain stakeholders may purposively hinder integration, we intend to discuss the potential effect of people’s beliefs about knowledge on the promotion or the hampering of the theory-practice integration. People’s set or system of beliefs about the nature and origins of knowledge and knowing are often referred to as ‘personal epistemology’ (Hofer & Pintrich, 2012; Barger et al., 2016). Such set of beliefs include people’s assumptions of how knowledge is validated (i.e., what they conceive and accept valid knowledge to be). Several terms are used in quite related ways: (a) epistemic beliefs, i.e., specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, (b) personal epistemology, i.e., a system of epistemic beliefs, and (c) epistemic cognition, i.e., mental processes associated with knowledge). In keeping with such distinctions, we also use the term ‘personal epistemology’ to refer to sets of epistemic beliefs (e.g., dogmatism). Moreover, two approaches to personal epistemologies can be distinguished (as also elaborated in Chap. 3). The cognitive-psychological approach, which focuses on the structural aspects of beliefs, i.e., the nature of knowledge and the methodology by which its validity is argued (Bromme et al., 2010; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012; Schommer-Aikins et al., 2000). The sociological strand, which is concerned with the social-order aspect of knowledge conceptions in terms of the function of knowledge (de Brabander & Rozendaal, 2007). There is a vast body of literature dealing with how epistemological beliefs (or personal epistemologies) relate: to learning strategies (Muis et al., 2006), to learning outcomes (Schommer, 1993), to motivation (Barger et al., 2016) and to metacognition (Bromme et al., 2010). Here, we propose that such beliefs also relate to the integration of theory and practice (i.e., to the extent to which this integration

2.2 Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

27

occurs). In Chap. 4, we report on our empirical investigation that maps the interpersonal epistemologies of micro-level actors (particularly about theory and practice) in a particular instructional context. At least two issues need to be considered when studying personal epistemologies. First, epistemic beliefs have been identified as both domain-specific and domaingeneral (Muis et al., 2006). Second, it has been proposed that the role and development of personal epistemologies, when learning through work, extend beyond epistemological beliefs. Instead, personal epistemologies are regarded as active, intentional, and derived from everyone’s unique set of social experiences (Billett, 2009). Despite such emphasis on the role of the individual, issues of accessibility to privileged knowledge, and restricting opportunities and expectations suggest that the role of the instructional context (i.e., its affordances) on the development of personal epistemologies cannot be denied (Orozco et al., 2020). So far, this chapter has presented the results of our literature study intended to address the broad question of what we know about the theory-practice integration. To such end, we first dealt with the topic of vocational or professional knowledge (seen as an output of the integration process) and its epistemological roots. In the same line, we discussed the way from dualism to inferentialism and the implications of adopting one or the other stance. Subsequently, we turned to the objects of integration and focused the discussion on the nature of theory and practice. Finally, we made explicit two emergent questions about the desirability and attainability of integration, and we discussed the plausible answers assisted by, respectively: insights into epistemological beliefs and the idea of distinctive logics. In the following subsections, we elaborate on the aforementioned inferentialist ideas; we introduce the theories of Inferentialism (along with Normative Pragmatism), its concepts, its vocabulary, its view on theoretical and practical rationality, and its implications for educational practice and research on integration. This is a necessary step in our effort to address the central questions in this book, i.e., how the ILTP can be conceived and how it proceeds.

2.2

Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

Inferentialism is a theory that has been involved and developed in the areas of law, history, politics, and education. Next to being a theory of meaning, Inferentialism is part of a move which views the mind as inseparable from world and language, attending to what is distinctively human (Derry, 2016). Inferentialism, a philosophical legacy further developed by Brandom (1994), is a systematic theoretical approach which offers the possibility of thinking lays emphasis on activity (i.e., mainly thinking and speaking, not necessarily hands-on activity) and the development of meaning (in terms of the movement of thought rather than snapshots). The idea of the movement of thought in the articulation of meaning is central to Inferentialism since it shows that the meaning of a concept, rather than being fixed, is fleshed out by the inferential connections that constitute it. As these connections change, so the meanings of concepts alter. (Derry, 2016, p. 1)

28

2 Overview of the Literature

Inferentialism is recognised for its offering a powerful analytical tool to examine human activity through a more fine-grained account than is commonly accessible within social scientific research (Derry, 2016). Brandom’s work develops “a new perspective that sets a standard for a whole field of knowledge, thinking, and research” (Derry, 2016, p. 1). The inferentialist ideas presented in this writing are drawn not only from Brandom (1994, 2000), but also from McDowell (1986) and from Vygotsky (1987), while the three authors acknowledge the influence of Hegel on their work (Guile, 2006; Derry, 2016). Other scholars have also acknowledged the centrality of oral verbal interaction or dialogue in the process of making meaning (e.g., Marzano et al., 1988), by imposing order on random perception, making pictorial expression more intelligible, and allowing us to formulate and share our experience.

2.2.1

The Notion of Inference Spans Gaps

An inference is a conclusion reached based on evidence and reasoning. Formally, it is composed by one or more antecedents and a consequent (either clearly identified by its use of logical language or not). More broadly, inferences can be seen as the glue that make things cohere (and hence integrated). Brandom’s technical usage of the word inference is much more comprehensive than the typical philosophical meaning; for him almost any judgement is an inference, as it includes the implicit claims or intentions that explain why someone would make the statement in the first place (Taylor et al., 2017). Indeed, it has been proposed that “Brandom’s notion of inference spans the gap between purely linguistic utterances and events in the world” (Causton, 2019, p. 6). Brandom (2000) explains how this proceeds: in using a concept “one implicitly endorses the propriety of the inference from the concept’s circumstances of appropriate application to its consequences of application” (p. 21). In this sense, inferences work by encompassing situations, claims and actions (Causton, 2019). Central to this line of thought is that concepts have an inferential purpose. As Guile (2006) explains, in discussing Vygotsky’s notion of representation, learning theoretical concepts is not equivalent to acquiring representations. Objects and events appear to sensory perception as being freestanding; it is then thanks to theoretical concepts that we see the connections and relations between those objects and events. To grasp such connections, we need to comprehend the generalisation embraced by a theoretical concept. In its turn, such generalisation, rather than an abstraction from the reality, is the construction of complex relationships between the objects represented in concepts and the objects themselves, provided that those concepts belong to a system of concepts. In other words, we need to understand the system of connections that exists between concepts and their representations before we can infer what follows from knowing a specific concept.

2.2 Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

2.2.2

29

A Theory of Meaning

Inferentialism (Brandom, 1994, 2000) is, predominantly, a semantic theory developed by the philosopher Robert Brandom; his theory builds on others’ seminal work, e.g., Vygotsky, McDowell and Sellars (Derry, 2016; Guile, 2006, 2010; Loeffler, 2018). In essence, Brandom introduces a shift from ‘conceptual representation’ to the ‘inferential role of concepts’ as the fundamental unit of meaning (Loeffler, 2018). Indeed, Inferentialism originates as a reaction to mere referential semantics or ‘representationalism’, this not implying a radical opposition to representations and their role in reasoning. The leading idea is that the use of a concept in an inference is precisely what confers the content to a concept. In other words, the inference is the content of the concept or, in Brandom’s terms, ‘concepts are propositionally contentful’. This idea also involves that any definition of a single concept is necessarily partial and, therefore, to understand a concept we need at least another concept. Such is the notion behind Brandom’s formulation that ‘concepts come in packages’. Hence, the meaning of a concept cannot be understood by means of a definition but, instead, by applying the concept in a judgement while distinguishing what follows from that judgement (i.e., amplative inference) and what that judgement follows from (i.e., justificatory inference). Brandom proposes that our capacity to understand through ‘mastery over inferences’ is what distinguishes human beings from non-inferential entities, such as a thermostat. To grasp or understand [. . .] a concept is to have practical mastery over the inferences it is involved in—to know, in the practical sense of being able to distinguish [. . .] what follows from the applicability of a concept, and what it follows from. (Brandom, 2000, p. 48)

2.2.3

The Rules of the Game: Deontic Scorekeeping

Put it in other words, Inferentialism explains concept formation in terms of the inferences individuals make in the context of an intersubjective practice of acknowledging, attributing, and challenging one another’s commitments (Noorloos et al., 2017). Indeed, Brandom’s (1994, 2000) theory of Normative Pragmatism extends his ‘inferential role semantics’ to propose that reasoning is instituted through linguistic communication in a process of mutual social recognition. This entails that reasoning, rather than an a priori internal process followed by articulation of its results, occurs during speech acts, and thus necessarily involve others (Loeffler, 2018). Additionally, Brandom emphasises that reasoning during linguistic communication develops even without explicit logic vocabulary (i.e., during autonomous speech). During such autonomous speech acts, the participants exchange claims or judgements, while giving reasons for their claims and challenging others to provide their reasons as well. Such is the so-called ‘game of giving and asking for reasons’

30

2 Overview of the Literature

(GoGAR). Throughout this interaction, speakers take responsibility for (i.e., they commit themselves to) the implications of their claims, make assertions from the belief that they are entitled to do so and, simultaneously, keep score of others’ interventions in order to attribute them, or not, the entitlement they mean to have. Speakers become thus scorekeepers of each others’ commitments and entitlements. Derry (2017) explains that, in playing the game and keeping track of each other’s commitments and entitlements, we may “discover what we are actually entitled to rather than what we, at first glance, assume” (Derry, 2017, p. 412) and, in so doing, we consolidate our understanding of the role that the concepts play in the inferences we make. Communication is possible, despite differing meaning ascribed to assertions. Inferentialism does not understand communication as the transmission of a meaning from one head to another one, rather as a cooperative activity ruled by the process of deontic scorekeeping. This language game binds us to acting as if we shared the same understanding of the concepts we use; here “to the extent that our shared language is an historical product of this negotiating process, we can expect that there shall be sufficient overlap” (Causton, 2019, p. 5). Whenever any excessive tensions in our understandings emerge, we will be forced to re-examine our repertoire of inferential commitments. This idea of ‘deontic scorekeeping’, when seen in the field of education, reveals the crucial role of instructors’ judgement in promoting the conditions for effective learning (Derry, 2016). In a particular context, speakers build and rebuild their own normative web of reasons, i.e., a situated network of concepts, judgements, intentions or motives for action, and the norms governing the use of concepts in a particular situation. In so communicating, speakers become responsive to each others’ reasons. This responsiveness (a human feature) involves reasons and not merely causes (Loeffler, 2018). It includes: (a) choosing what to pay attention to, (b) choosing to perform an action for a reason and (c) forming a judgement following a propositional or a perceptual input. The idea of responsiveness to reasons is key. One becomes sensible for the reasons why someone claims or does something, and not for the causal factors. Not only do we develop a sensibility for others’ reasons, but also for the reasons behind our own claims and actions. Moreover, judgements may play different inferential roles (i.e., justificatory, amplative or critical). These roles are also called ‘the norms of reasoning’ (Loeffler, 2018). Indeed, the norms of justificatory, amplative and critical reasoning not only structure the space of reasons, but also govern the use of concepts. The rational being needs to perpetually update its system of judgements by synthesising, i.e., (a) integrating, (b) weeding out and (c) expanding. Integrating refers to: accommodating new information, forming new judgements, and seeing the amplative and justificatory connections between the old and new judgements. Weeding out refers to repelling claims incompatible with our judgements. [...] A speaker’s commitment to assert A may be a consequence of her commitment to assert B, C, etc., and it may in turn commit her to assert D, E, etc. as well as preclude her from entitlement to assert F, G, etc. (Loeffler, 2018, p. 84)

2.2 Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

31

More precisely, a theoretical or practical judgement ‘that p’ relates via norms of good reasoning to another actual or potential judgement thus playing one of three roles (Loeffler, 2018). In justificatory reasoning, the judgement ‘that p’ follows inferentially from another judgement. In amplative reasoning, another judgement follows inferentially from the judgement ‘that p’. In critical reasoning, a judgement is incompatible with the judgement ‘that p’. It also possible to put this distinction of inferential roles in terms of responsibilities, where justificatory responsibility involves justifying our theoretical judgements and practical commitments properly, amplative responsibility involves drawing the right theoretical or practical consequences from our judgements and commitments, and critical responsibility involves weeding out incompatibilities from our system of judgements and commitments. Finally, there are different ways in which sentences and cognitive mental states stand to each other (Loeffler, 2018). This is to say that there are different kind of relations between sentences and beliefs (among other states), i.e., inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations. First, the inferential relation pertains to what the antecedent M would be in a proposition ‘If M then P’, or what the predicate Q would be in a proposition. ‘If P then Q’. Second, the compatibility relation pertains to what would be evidence for a particular concept, or what are the implications of the use of that concept in the same or another context (e.g., conclusions, goals, purpose, utility). And third, the incompatibility relation pertains to what would be incompatible with a particular concept, or what does not follow from the use of a concept in terms of implications of the use of that concept. However, given that others’ cognitive mental states are only accessible to us through their actions and assertions, in this study we take these inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations to be between sentences, rather than between sentences and mental states. Beyond the outlined theories of Inferentialism and of Normative Pragmatism, Brandom also developed a theory of the formation of beliefs as well as a theory of truth (in line with a social internalist approach to justification). In short, in his theory of truth Brandom resorts to the idea of ‘material inferences’ as opposed to validity of inferences by mere virtue of their logical form (Brandom, 2000). For the sake of feasibility, we do not consider these theories in detail in this book; we propose (see Chap. 6) that such theories constitute valuable thought lines for continuing research on integration.

2.2.4

The Web of Reasons: A Conceptual Context

Inferentialism proposes that concepts are ‘propositionally contentful’ (Brandom, 1994, 2000). This implies that it is the use of a concept in inferences what confers such concept its meaning or, in other words, that inferences are the content of the concept considered (Guile, 2006).

32

2 Overview of the Literature

According to McDowell (1994), when we justify (or are able to justify on demand) our use of a concept, “we are placing [what we claim to know] in the logical space of reasons” (Guile, 2006, p. 264) and, in so doing, our understanding becomes meaningful. Our interpretation of new concepts (the activity of locating those concepts in a space of reasons) is a quest to distinguish what is ‘propositionally contentful’ so that it serves as both a premise and a conclusion in inference (Brandom, 2000). This is best accomplished by the social practice of inference or the so-called ‘giving and asking for reasons’ (Brandom, 1995). Moreover, in locating representations in the space of reasons, we also allow others to draw inferences from them. Furthermore, reason is still in play even when we are unable to justify some piece of knowledge that has been acquired non-inferentially (e.g., accepting something to be true without warrants, or taking something for granted) (Guile, 2006). This means that to be able to make a claim or to believe something, we need to have some preliminary practical mastery of its inferential role (in terms of, e.g., know how to discriminate what can follow from what cannot follow, as well as to discriminate what would be a warrant and what would not). In this line, Causton (2019) interprets Sellars’ (1956) idea of a ‘space reasons’ as the conceptual context of a concept, while describing the relation between the concept and its context: Thus, if we are to equate the content of our current concept with its inferential role, we must understand this content as both determined by and determining the content of other related concepts. The introduction of a new concept to one’s vocabulary is always within a conceptual context shaped by the background social practices of language users. In turn, by introducing this new concept, the context is itself modified as previously held concepts are reconfigured to accommodate this new knowledge. (Causton, 2019, p. 8)

The term ‘web of reasons’ (Bakker & Derry, 2011) is inspired on Sellars’ (1956) ‘space of reasons’ (a central idea in Brandom’s Inferentialism). The ‘space of reasons’ refers to a network of concepts, judgements, intentions or motives for action, and the norms governing the use of concepts. In its turn, the idea of ‘web of reasons’ has been coined to emphasise both (a) the inferential structure of the space of reasons and (b) its being context dependent. Therefore, the use of ‘web of reasons’ denotes a situated network of concepts, judgements and intentions, and the norms of use in a particular situation. The key issue in grasping the idea of any the space or the web of reasons, is that a holistic view on such reasons is maintained (Bakker et al., 2008) in order to avoid prioritising any of them a priori. Additionally, the very idea of a ‘web of reasons’, has the potential to resolve transfer issues during instructional design that result from the notion of ‘context’. Briefly, such transfer issues refer to inert knowledge that is learnt in the absence of reasoning and in the absence of representations that make sense to learners (Bakker & Derry, 2011); such knowledge is then hard to transfer to ‘new contexts’. Therefore, it has been suggested that the notion of web of reasons is a more accurate and non-dichotomous alternative to the notion of ‘context’ (ibid). According to this view, an instructional designer needs such a more precise notion to account for all relevant reasons involved in an educational problem (Bakker & Derry, 2011).

2.2 Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

33

Finally, although exhaustive descriptions of particular webs of reasons are prohibitive, efforts have been made to characterise webs in particular disciplines by means of empirically found relevant features (e.g., Bakker et al., 2008). In all, it has been proposed that a web of reasons can be analysed at the collective level as much as at the individual level (ibid): at an individual level the focus resides on the reasons, implications, causes, and effects that a person is responsive to, while the web at the collective level is taken as being constitutive of the community, practice, or context in which the inferences are made. Nevertheless, and on consideration of the idea of ‘responsiveness’, we are cautious about this latter claim and suggest that the analysis at the individual level may not be fully feasible due to the extent to which it is nested in the learning environment. Endorsing particular inferential relations resulting in definite commitments is evidently not an isolated achievement. [. . .] Our responses arise within the constraints of the existing social and material world we inhabit. It is the triangulation of shared responses in conjunction with the environment we inhabit which maintains the norms that distinguish one response from another. [...] we become attuned to environments in ways that ensure we are responsive to the appropriate reasons despite formal knowledge of what these reasons are. (Derry, 2016, pp. 7–10)

2.2.5

Theoretical and Practical Rationality

Non-duality refers to the idea that theoretical and practical judgements are not intrinsically different, rather the difference rests in the different use of concepts within judgements (Brandom, 1994). Furthermore, Brandom distinguishes a third use: observational judgements (although there is some discussion on whether observations are inferential or not). Loeffler (2018) further explains that the difference between judgements is not ontological but methodological, i.e., given by how a concept is used (a) theoretically, (b) observationally/empirically or (c) practically. In line with Sellars (1956), Brandom distinguishes the observable from the theoretical as follows: Here ‘theoretical’ is opposed to ‘practical’, as pertaining to relations exclusively between doxastic discursive commitments. This use ought not to be confused with the sense of ‘theoretical’ that is opposed to ‘observational’, within the doxastic sphere. In the latter usage, following Sellars’s practice (in “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind” and elsewhere), theoretical claims are distinguished as those one cannot become entitled to non-inferentially, by the exercise of reliable differential responsive dispositions to acknowledge doxastic commitments. Theoretical vocabulary is then distinguished as that which appears only in claims that are theoretical in this sense. It is this usage that stands behind Sellars’s claim that the distinction between the observable and the theoretical is not ontological but only methodological. Neptune was a theoretical entity so long as claims about it could be arrived at only inferentially, as based on its perturbation of the observable orbits of other planets. It became observable, however, once we built telescopes powerful enough to make it subject to non-inferential reporting. Something is theoretical or observable in this sense only relative to our practices; nothing is “intrinsically” theoretical. (Brandom, 1994, p. 678)

34

2 Overview of the Literature

Theoretical judgements are claims about an entity or a concept one can arrive at only inferentially, i.e., the entity is not observable (Brandom, 1994). This is illustrated by invoking the concept ‘Neptune’ and judgements about its perturbating Uranus’ orbit. Observation judgements are theoretical judgements formed in response to perceptual input. Observation judgements are formed in immediate response to the perception of aspects of one’s environment. Observational judgements result from non-inferential processes, such as intentional actions also do (Loeffler, 2018). Although observational judgements are considered non-inferential, they make a crucial semantic contribution (Loeffler, 2018, pp. 39–40). Indeed, the empirical content and knowledge of the largely non-linguistic, observable world is understood in terms of ‘language entries in perception’ and ‘language exits in action’. These entries and exists relate to the meaning-constitutive norms of inference and incompatibility. A practical judgement denotes the intention to act in certain ways. Practical reasoning is geared toward intentional action: it implies practical commitments as well as entitlements to such commitments. Next to these practical commitments, practical reasoning also implies inferential commitments that link practical judgements to each other and to assertional commitments (Loeffler, 2018). Briefly, intentions to act are practical judgements (Loeffler, 2018), such as in ‘I shall open my umbrella’, as recognisable by the use of ‘shall’. Here ‘intentionality’ pertains to ‘motives for action’, i.e., purpose, goal, or resolution, rather than a more technical use of the term that denotes ‘aboutness’ or ‘directedness’ (Slors et al., 2015). Finally, we, as rational beings, are both theoretically rational and practically rational. In other terms, “reasoning is simultaneously an epistemic and a semantic activity” (Loeffler, p. 40). Such rationalities are assessed by us and others according to the norms of the shared web of reasons. Qua theoretical rational, epistemic beings, we are responsible for forming judgements based on good evidence and in light of standards of good probabilistic thinking, to draw the right conclusions from our judgements, and to keep our system of theoretical judgements coherent. Qua practically rational beings, we are responsible for setting the right goals for ourselves, both morally and (relative to our beliefs, desires, and personal maxims) prudentially, to make proper decisions and to form proper intentions in light of these goals and to weed out incompatible maxims, goals, or intentions. [. . .] Thus theoretical and practical reasoning is evaluable in light of a vast, complicated system of norms and standards of reasoning. (Loeffler, 2018, pp. 34–35)

Brandom’s call to ‘make explicit what is implicit’ by linguistic expression, is not just a question of “transforming what is inner into what is outer” (Brandom, 2000, p. 8), i.e., it is not simply a matter of conceptualising something by putting it into a statement or judgement. Most of all, that statement further stands in need of a reason (Marabini & Moretti, 2017). Indeed, it has been proposed that to ‘know’ or to ‘understand’ something is not just giving a logical description of it or ‘clothing’ it in concepts (Guile, 2006). Instead, knowing something refers to justifying (or being able to justify on demand) what one says (McDowell, 1994). In this sense, conceptual knowledge is related to a practical know-how in terms of the “inferential

2.2 Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

35

practices of producing and consuming reasons” (Brandom, 2000, p. 14), i.e., our capacity to explain our reasons for supporting particular inferences and to challenge others’ inferences (Causton, 2019). This is not to claim that professionals are always able to articulate the reasons for their judgements in the ‘flux of working’: much judgement is often implicit or tacit in nature (Eraut, 2000; Polanyi, 1962).

2.2.5.1

Inferentialism and Representationalism

Inferentialism originates as a reaction to mere referential semantics or ‘representationalism’, this not implying a radical opposition to representations and their role in reasoning. Based on Vygotsky’s notion of representation, learning theoretical concepts is not equivalent to acquiring representations (Guile, 2006). Opposing to the idea of mere representation implies opposing to the a priori delimitation of knowledge. This means that “knowledge is not an entity, a representation, to be constructed inside the head of the learner, but [instead] a practical capacity for a particular type of social activity, the game of giving and asking for reasons. [...] This [practical] capacity is not readily reduced to a diagrammatic structure defining the knowledge to be acquired” (Causton, 2019, pp. 1–2). The inferentialist view adopts the sentence as unit of meaning, not the isolated words and the concepts they represent (Causton, 2019). Indeed, this view places “whole sentences as prior in the order of explanation to the sort of content that is expressed by sub-sentential expressions” (Brandom, 2000, p. 12). Here Brandom (2000) proposes that sentences are the fundamental matter from which meaning emerges, while the composing words only carry meaning insofar as they contribute to the sentences. More particularly, Inferentialism proposes that concepts are ‘propositionally contentful’ and that words have a referential function via their role in inferential relations. Furthermore, “the richness of these inferential relations furnishes us with the material to move away from flat representational notions of our concepts and to see a space in which to explore them” (Causton, p. 5). According to Brandom, we should privilege inference over representation. This is not to be understood as a radical opposition to representation. Instead, as Bakker and Derry (2011) explain, “inferentialism as a valuable reminder to keep in mind the existence of an implicit inferential domain (a web of reasons) supporting and sustaining the meaning of representations” (p. 22). If we do not deliberately emphasise inference, we “might easily fall prey to privileging the explicit and visible representations, and even taking them to be the disciplinary knowledge” (ibid., p. 22). This shift from the idea of representation to the idea of inference has implications for pedagogical practices and instructional design (Derry, 2017). Finally, representations acquire meaning in the exercise of reasoning. “Brandom explains the meaning of representations in terms of reasoning practices rather than the possibility of reasoning or making inferences on the basis of representations” (Bakker & Hußmann, 2017, p. 395).

36

2 Overview of the Literature

2.3

Inferentialism and Learning

More recently, philosophers and researchers have linked Inferentialism to education and to learning. This trend promises to bring Inferentialism from an epistemological theory to a new metaphor on learning and to a new learning theory. Today, however, Inferentialism is neither a learning theory nor a pedagogical approach. As Bakker and Hußmann (2017) note, it often takes several years before philosophical ideas flow into educational theory, and eventually come to influence educational research and practice. In this line, philosophical debates which may be related to Inferentialism constitute valuable novel resources with which to approach persistent education issues, in particular regarding epistemological topics such as concepts, knowledge, or reason (Bakker & Hußmann, 2017). For example, Inferentialism has the potential to assist education research to understand how people learn concepts in terms of social reasoning, and it may advance significant insights into the relation of social and individual aspects of learning (ibid). Although, as explained before, Inferentialism does not constitute a learning theory yet, it has inspired tentative definitions (e.g., of understanding and of learning). The following definitions respond to an inferential view on learning: To grasp or understand [. . .] a concept is to have practical mastery over the inferences it is involved in—to know, in the practical sense of being able to distinguish [. . .] what follows from the applicability of a concept, and what it follows from. (Brandom, 2000, p. 48) [. . .] learning consists in the process by which learners come to master concepts and practices. (Taylor et al., 2017, p. 769) Acquiring concepts then involves the progressive grasp in discourse of the linguistic apparatus expressive of those concepts. Learning about a subject in the most basic sense is, then, in large part learning to take part in conversations and discussions that employ those concepts. This is a matter of degree as one ascends from novicehood to expertise. (Winch, 2013, p. 132)

From the many ways in which Inferentialism can describe ‘learning’, we have only presented three. From these illustrations it follows that learning is strongly related to the idea of growing mastery of concepts, in terms of a developmental ability to use those concepts in claims. These claims position the concepts logically in relation to other concepts (according to the inferentialist ideas) and, moreover, the speakers need to account to others for their claims (according to the normative pragmatist ideas). These lessons drawn from the inferentialist ideas have synthesised into a single ‘mastery metaphor’ for learning (Taylor et al., 2017). The connection of Inferentialism to education and to learning processes emerges strongly when we consider learning through the lens of this new metaphor, which offers an alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. The proposed a shift to the mastering metaphor of learning promises to carry several advantages (Noorloos et al., 2017).

2.3 Inferentialism and Learning

2.3.1

37

Links Between Inferentialism and Education

It has been suggested that the Cartesian separation between theoretical and practical knowledge, compels us to appeal to pedagogies of reflection as a means to integration (Guile, 2010). For example, Choy and Sappa (2016) in referring to other authors, advance that “integration extends beyond self-reflection upon actions, to reflection for metacognition” (pp. 88–89). In another example, Neuweg (2004) proposes that experiential knowledge should be accompanied by reflection (which includes the synchronisation of language and things; the strengthening of a mutual interrelationship between experience, analysis, reflection, and the integration of knowing into action, as well as direct assessment). As Guile notices (2010), pedagogies of reflection are not clear on how such reflection should proceed, what often results in learners left on their own with the impossibility to reconcile theory and practice. Indeed, Guile skilfully discusses both what can be attractive and what can be problematic about the pedagogies based on the concept of reflection. Here, several writers are cited who (irrespectively of the epistemological position they hold) have advanced reflection as the basis of a pedagogic strategy, without actually solving the ‘two worlds’ dilemma. Finally, he concludes: We have demonstrated that the resulting ‘pedagogies of reflection’ constitute an inadequate basis for overcoming the dilemmas that they purportedly address. They are deficient because they have failed to recognise that the root cause of the pedagogic problems is the legacy of the two worlds of knowledge in traditional, utilitarian, and postmodern conceptions of knowledge that currently reverberate within policy and practice in higher education in general and PVWL [professional, vocational and workplace learning] in specific. (Guile, 2010, p. 75)

Abandoning distinction between theory and practice, however, can be expected to have negative implications for the learners as well (Guile, 2010). Indeed, an oversimplification of the relationship between theory and practice often results in an overemphasis on practice at the expense of theory that eventually leads to instrumental application of theory (Guile, 2006, 2010). At this point, as explained before, Brandom’s pragmatist ideas concerning Inferentialism (Brandom, 1994, 2000) enable us to deal with such epistemological problem by adopting a non-dualistic distinction of theory and practice. Such adopting an inferentialist epistemology has implications not only on our broad perspective on learning, but also on our view on the aim of education and on pedagogical innovation (in terms of curricula development, instructional design, and everyday learning and instruction activities), as well as on education research. Prior epistemological discussions and theoretical studies using inferentialist ideas have dealt with such implications on education issues. It has been proposed that the aim of education should be that people “learn[...] how to play a game, to operate within the inferential rules determining it, and, critically, to question the moves of others where they conflict with her own inferential commitments” (Causton, 2019, p. 2). With regard to curricula development, the inferentialist theory has been praised for assisting epistemological reflection on challenges in education (Bakker & Derry,

38

2 Overview of the Literature

2011), as a valuable theoretical resource for curriculum reform efforts. In this line, an inferentialist educational approach is considered to be plausible; such approach privileges holism over atomism, as well as an understanding of concepts in terms of their role in reasoning within a social practice, rather than in representational terms (ibid). The very inferentialist conception of learning as concept formation, e.g., learning seen as “epistemic progression [...] from novicehood to expertise within a subject” (Winch, 2013, p. 142), is closely related to problems of curriculum design. Winch (2013) proposes that the adoption of the inferentialist approach “allows us to begin to think about curriculum design as the management of growth of expertise within a subject in ways which recognise the different kinds of knowledge involved, but also their relationship” (p. 134). For instructional design to contribute to the proposed aim of education, opportunities should be built in to induct the learner into the practice of the game, by “creating sufficient points of contact that [the learner] is able, as a matter of practical mastery, to perform inferential moves discernible as such to another player within the same knowledge domain” (p. 4). Also relevant to instructional design, is the recommendation to design for teaching and learning aiming to avoid inert knowledge, to avoid atomistic approaches, and to enhance coherence from a student perspective (Bakker & Derry, 2011). This conclusion results from research (consisting of a theoretical discussion with empirical illustrations) that focuses on Statistics education (ibid). The pedagogical challenges in this field, the authors contend, are common to other educational segments and, therefore, the conclusions from this study are not restricted to statistics education but have wider spread implications. Hußmann and Schacht (2015) suggest that the inferentialist assumptions can be used (albeit particularly in Mathematics education) to design learning environments and, more specifically, learning tasks: The assumption of Inferentialism that concepts are inferentially structured could be used to guide the design of learning environments, and the assumption that individuals are responsible for their actions in discursive practices could be used with the help of inferentially structured webs of reasons. Both the [...] content and an individual’s knowledge shown within social practices could be described with the same tools so that designing tasks and reconstructing learning processes are mutually supportive activities. (Hußmann & Schacht, 2015, p. 399)

With respect to everyday learning and instruction activities, the task of the instructor is to make explicit the norms governing the use of concepts, while allowing the learner the opportunity to explore and express their own commitments in the process of negotiating a mutual understanding (Causton, 2019). In this engaging in an exploration of the inferential roles of concepts, the learner acquires an appreciation of these concepts, provided that the instructor actively and constantly mediates the learner’s exploration. In so doing, the instructor embodies canonical interpretations of scientific knowledge (Causton, 2019). Also central to Inferentialism is the idea of making inferences explicit. This idea calls for understanding concepts in terms of inference and requires that instructors include implicit and tacit reasoning steps rather than taking them for granted (Bakker & Derry, 2011).

2.3 Inferentialism and Learning

39

Unlike competent users, who often need not be conscious of the inferential relations within their field of expertise, learners still depend on the instructors’ articulation of the inferential domain (ibid). Moreover, often it is the implications of a claim what remains unspoken or, in other words, “commitments include consequences that the speaker may not be aware of” (Hußmann et al., 2018, p. 4). Therefore, it is important that the instructors make learners aware of the implications of their claims. Pedagogical innovation in inferentialist terms requires a holist rather than an atomistic view on concepts, and an understanding of concepts primarily in inferential rather than simply in representational terms (Bakker & Derry, 2011). This implies that learners “need to become familiar with systems of judgments, in which the meanings of several concepts become inferentially articulated” (Bakker & Hußmann, 2017, p. 398), instead of learning isolated concepts and graphical representations. Furthermore, Inferentialism is of great interest for those who are concerned with how learners grasp concepts, as it plays a key role in explaining the process of representation (Derry, 2016). Briefly, such explanation accounts for how meaning arises from connecting a reference to another reference or to what is being referenced; the exact meaning of any concept therefore will hinge on its location within a particular knowledge domain and will depend on the history of its development and use (ibid). With particular attention to vocational education, Guile (2006) synthesises the implications of adopting Inferentialism for vocational curriculum and for vocational pedagogy. Firstly, several shifts are proposed in the principles that inform the design of vocational curricula (e.g., a shift from a curriculum deriving from the notion of representation to one deriving from the notion of Inferentialism). Consistently, it is suggested that vocational pedagogy shifts in the principles that inform our understanding of the relation between theory and practice (e.g., conceiving of practicebased learning as demanding a different pedagogy from theoretical learning, to realising that all forms of learning presuppose the social practice of reasoning). In connection with education research, it is important to realise that an inferentialist analysis of learning needs to be focused on the reasons that underlie learners’ activities, which can be expressed in commitments, actions, or norms (Causton, 2019). Additionally, further education research that adopts an inferentialist stance, will benefit from advancements in establishing an ‘inferentialist learning theory’. Indeed, Inferentialism is essentially a philosophical theory without any claims on psychology and, therefore, several researchers are currently at work to develop inferential analyses of learning (e.g., Bakker & Derry, 2011; Hußmann & Schacht, 2009; Schindler et al., 2017). Establishing an ‘inferentialist learning theory’ still requires that researchers find the psychological link between epistemology and the actual learning theory (Noorloos et al., 2017). Finally, in assisting the development of a clearer conception of learning in terms of the mastering of webs of reasons, Inferentialism brings its own metaphorical framework; this refers to the ‘mastering metaphor’ (Taylor et al., 2017), which offers an alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. The proposed a shift to the mastering metaphor of learning promises to carry several advantages (Noorloos et al., 2017).

40

2 Overview of the Literature

All in all, this brief review shows that the adoption of Inferentialism has consequences beyond the philosophical sphere, and that education practice and education research need to be consistent with such consequences.

2.3.2

Inferentialism in Empirical Research on Learning

To present, only a few empirical studies have used inferentialist ideas in order to analyse empirical data (e.g., Bakker & Hußmann, 2017; Heusdens et al., 2016, 2018), through “a reworking of the original inferentialist concepts” (Bakker & Hußmann, 2017, p. 400). But most of all, prior empirical research has shown how Inferentialism constitutes a valuable theoretical resource to assist epistemological reflection on challenges in education (Bakker & Derry, 2011). However, we contend that Inferentialism can be even more than a resource to assist reflection. In the present study, we propose an operationalisation of Inferentialism (a) into a potentially suitable framework for conceptualising integrative learning and (b) into a tool for analysing the integration of theoretical, observational, and practical judgements. The need to articulate the operationalisation of the theoretical framework selected, and the way in which the operationalisation develops, are inspired on existing works (Mwanza, 2001; Bakker & Akkerman, 2014). We deal with the proper operationalisation in Chap. 5, where we further expose how it guided our empirical research, aiming to understand the theory-practice integration, in terms of learners’ change in responsiveness to different kinds of reasons.

2.4

Conclusion

This chapter aimed at (a) centralising existing knowledge about the epistemological roots of vocational knowledge, that we extended to and focused on the integration of theory and practice, (b) questioning the desirability and attainability of integration, assisted by insights into epistemological beliefs and into distinctive logics, and finally, (c) presenting the theory of Inferentialism, along with its relation to learning and instruction. The review of existing theoretical and empirical knowledge about perspectives on professional and vocational knowledge provided a background and awareness of the epistemological roots of the problem of integration. It offers arguments for the need to conceptualise and describe the theory-practice integration, thus adding to the justification of the present work. Additionally, we showed the importance of adopting a rationale that is conducive to resolving the theory-practice dualism, in which many pedagogical approaches are still embedded, and that seems to constitute an obstacle to integration. Subsequently, based on these theoretical considerations, we advanced a rationale for adopting a non dualistic, inferentialist position.

2.4 Conclusion

41

Additionally, we raised the question about what one integrates, i.e., about the very objects of integration. Here we acknowledged that, while our interest goes to theory and practice, the literature also refers to different objects that require attention. A further important conclusion that permeates the entire book (in line with the non dualistic, inferentialist position adopted), is that our core objects of integration are already ‘naturally’ integrated; in other terms, ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ cannot be defined as ontologically different entities. It follows that we treat theory and practice as different only when we problematise integration, i.e., at the analytical level. Given that Studies 2 and 3 respond to a grounded theory methodology (characterised by a data-driven approach), they do not depart from any theoretical framework but rather rest on sensitising concepts that need to be acknowledged (see Chaps. 3 and 4). We used those concepts in the present chapter to assist the discussions about the desirability and attainability of the theory-practice integration. Firstly, we introduced the concept of ‘epistemological beliefs’ to discuss the desirability. Here we proposed that integration may not necessarily be longed-for by all actors and stakeholders in a particular instructional context, and that people’s beliefs about integrated knowledge (its nature and the assessment of its validity) may promote integration in some cases, but restrict integration in other. Secondly, we introduced the idea of distinctive logics to question the attainability of integration. We concluded that integration needs to be considered as an aim to strive for (rather than an attainable goal), if we remain stuck in the conviction that theory and practice respond to distinctive and unreconcilable logics (that use different assessment criteria for what counts as valid). Concurrently, we advocated that the idea of deontic scorekeeping (part of Normative Pragmatism) provides a different view on the validity assessment process; this view dissolves the problem of distinctive and non-reconcilable logics, thus rendering ILTP attainable. It should be noted that the discussions about desirability and attainability of integration do not directly address our central question, rather they offer elements to assess to what extent our assumptions are tenable. This book departs from the assumptions that the ILTP is both desirable and attainable. Finally, we introduced the theory of Inferentialism and the related Normative Pragmatism. This is an important section, because it allows to understand our methodology (from the most fundamental questions to the actual analytical procedures), and because it directly relates to how we interpret and address the central question about the progress of the ILTP process. To these ends we clarified: the notion of inference, the idea of inferential meaning of a concept as opposed to a priori representational meaning, the rules of the GoGAR (i.e., the game of giving and asking for reasons), the notions of space of reasons and web of reasons, and the distinction between theoretical and practical rationality. Furthermore, supported by existing knowledge on the implications of Inferentialism, we elaborated on the relationship between Inferentialism and integrative learning. Such relationship presents a significant potential to understand the phenomenon of learning from a new and promising perspective; this potential is now stating to be exploited. This chapter has presented the results or our literature study, thus addressing the broad question of what we know about the theory-practice integration. In short, we know that this integration is often posed to be problematic, that the problematic

42

2 Overview of the Literature

aspect appears to be rooted in an epistemological disagreement, and that the problem could (majorly) be dissolved by adopting a non-dualistic stance, whose ideas are condensed in the inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories. To the extent that we consider that the integration problem remains, and before we attempt to resolve it, we need to acknowledge that the theory-practice integration may be desirable or not (possibly linked to people’s epistemological beliefs), and that this integration may be attainable or not (depending on how unreconcilable distinctive logics are taken to be). When we, finally, set out to try to resolve the integration problem, the inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories come again into play, offering us a plausible and very promising way out.

References Bakker, A., & Akkerman, S. F. (2014). A boundary-crossing approach to support students’ integration of statistical and work-related knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 223–237. Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 5–26. Bakker, A., & Hußmann, S. (2017). Inferentialism in mathematics education: Introduction to a special issue. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 395–401. Bakker, A., Kent, P., Derry, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2008). Statistical inference at work: Statistical process control as an example. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 130–145. Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590–617. Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Huettel, L. G., & Linnenbrink-García, L. (2016). Developmental changes in college engineering students’ personal epistemology profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 1–8. Beckett, D. (2000). Making workplace learning explicit: An epistemology of practice for the whole person. Westminster Studies in Education, 23(1), 41–53. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. Billett, S. (2004). Learning through work: Workplace participatory practices. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 109–125). Routledge. Billett, S. (2009). Personal epistemologies, work and learning. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.001 Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press. Brandom, R. (1995). Knowledge and the social articulation of the space of reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55(4), 895–908. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7–26. Causton, E. (2019). Bringing inferentialism to science education. Science & Education, 28(1), 1–19. Choy, S., & Sappa, V. (2016). Australian stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting vocational learning at TAFE and workplaces. International Journal of Training Research, 14(2), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2016.1200237 de Brabander, C., & Rozendaal, J. (2007). Epistemological Beliefs, Social Status, and School Preference: An exploration of relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830701191621

References

43

Derry, J. (2016). Inferentialism and education. In Philosophy of education Society of Great Britain annual conference (pp. 1–3). New College. Derry, J. (2017). An introduction to inferentialism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 403–418. Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–435. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136. Fischer, M., Boreham, N. C., & Nyhan, B. (2004). European perspectives on learning at work: The acquisition of work process knowledge (Vol. 56). European Communities. Gessler, M., & Moreno Herrera, L. (2015). Vocational didactics: Core assumptions and approaches from Denmark, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2(3), 152–160. Guile, D. (2006). Learning across contexts. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 251–268. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy (Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Guile, D., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028738 Heusdens, W. T., Bakker, A., Baartman, L. K. J., & De Bruijn, E. (2016). Contextualising vocational knowledge: A theoretical framework and illustrations from culinary education. Vocations and Learning, 9(2), 151–165. Heusdens, W. T., Baartman, L. K., & de Bruijn, E. (2018). Knowing everything from soup to dessert: An exploratory study to describe what characterises students’ vocational knowledge. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 70(3), 435–454. Hiim, H. (2017). Ensuring curriculum relevance in vocational education and training: Epistemological perspectives in a curriculum research project. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 4(1), 1–19. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Routledge. Hußmann, S., & Schacht, F. (2009). Toward an inferential approach analysing concept formation and language processes. Proceedings of CERME, 6, 842–851. Hußmann, S., & Schacht, F. (2015). Fachdidaktische Entwicklungsforschung in inferentieller Perspektive am Beispiel von Variable und Term. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 36(1), 105–134. Hußmann, S., Schacht, F., & Schindler, M. (2018). Tracing conceptual development in mathematics: Epistemology of webs of reasons. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(1–2), 1–17. Jørgensen, C. H. (2004). Connecting work and education: Should learning be useful, correct or meaningful? Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8), 455–465. Loeffler, R. (2018). Brandom. Key contemporary thinkers. Polity Press. Marabini, A., & Moretti, L. (2017). Assessing concept possession as an explicit and social practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 801–816. Marzano, R. J., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McDowell, J. (1986). Singular thought and the extent of inner space. In P. Pettit & J. McDowell (Eds.), Subject, thought, and context (pp. 137–168). Oxford University Press. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Harvard University. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54. Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory-based methodology to guide computer system design. Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 conference on human-computer interaction, 9–13 July 2001, Tokyo, Japan.

44

2 Overview of the Literature

Neuweg, G. H. (2004). Tacit knowing and implicit learning. In M. Fischer, N. Boreham, & B. Niham (Eds.), European perspectives on learning at work: The acquisition of work process knowledge (Cedefop Reference Series) (pp. 130–147). Office for Official Publications for the European Communities. Neuweg, G. H., & Fothe, S. (2011). In search of the golden mean: The ambivalence of knowledge explication. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 340-352. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/search-golden-mean-ambivalence-knowledge/ docview/1017685030/se-2 Noorloos, R., Taylor, S. D., Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2017). Inferentialism as an alternative to socioconstructivism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 437–453. Orozco, M., Gijbels, D., & Timmerman, C. (2020). Conceiving the relationship between theory and practice in T-VET. An in-depth study on key actors’ epistemological perspectives. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1715468 Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing. Its bearing on some problems in philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34(4), 601. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.601 Russell, B. (1912). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. In The problems of philosophy (p. 5). Home University Library. Sappa, V., Choy, S., & Aprea, C. (2016). Stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting learning at different sites in two national VET systems. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 68(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2016.1201845 Schindler, M., Nilsson, P., Hussmann, S., & Bakker, A. (2017). Sixth-grade students’ reasoning on the order relation of integers as influenced by prior experience: An inferentialist analysis. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0202-x Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406. Schommer-Aikins, M., Mau, W.-C., Brookhart, S., & Hutter, R. (2000). Understanding Middle Students’ Beliefs about Knowledge and Learning Using a Multidimensional Paradigm. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 120–127. Sellars, W. S. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. Slors, M., De Bruin, L., & Strijbos, D. (2015). Philosophy of mind, brain and behaviour. Boom. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784. Sych, S. M. (2016). The divide between vocational and academic education and how we might be able to repair the rift. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 14(2), 43. Taylor, S. D., Noorloos, R., & Bakker, A. (2017). Mastering as an inferentialist alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 769–784. Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0959-4752(96)00029-1 Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.12.001 Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Volume 1: Problems of general psychology, including the volume thinking and speech (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. Winch, C. (2013). Curriculum design and epistemic ascent. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(1), 128–146. Young, M. (2003a). Conceptualizing vocational knowledge: Some theoretical considerations. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 185–200). Routledge. Young, M. (2003b). Durkheim, Vygotsky and the curriculum of the future. London Review of Education, 1(2), 99–117. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2014). From the sociology of professions to the sociology of professional knowledge. In M. Young & J. Muller (Eds.), Knowledge, expertise and the professions (pp. 3–30). Routledge.

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1

Ontological and Epistemological Positioning

At this point, we need to articulate the basic assumptions underlying our research efforts, as such assumptions are expected to shape enquiry profoundly (e.g., Scott, 2016). The following analysis echoes the idea that the ontological position (about the nature of reality and of things) engender epistemological assumptions (about ways of researching into the nature of reality and things) and axiology issues (concerning values and beliefs), while in their turn giving rise to methodological considerations (Cohen et al., 2011). These latter considerations eventually assist us in making several decisions that precede the data collection and analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Maxwell, 2004). Rather than providing an extensive defence of any particular stance, we state our position and its most important implications, as shown in Table 3.1, in order to offer a justification for our methods and approach. It is necessary that the set of assumptions be internally consistent, i.e., that the assumptions are reconcilable to each other and that remain stable throughout the research project. We adopt a consistent basis that involves, to a large extent (not radically): a realist ontology, an interpretative epistemological position, a voluntarist regard on human nature and an idiographic methodological basis. Beyond these first four dimensions that typically characterise an overarching subjective-objective dimension (Cohen et al., 2011), we pay particular attention to axiology (e.g., Barber, 2012), and the non-dualistic view on theory and practice (e.g., Guile, 2006).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7_3

45

46

3.2

3 Methodology

Rationale for the Methods Selection

3.2.1

Methodological Consistency

The methodological consistency resides in the alignment of philosophical assumptions and research methods (see Table 3.1). Indeed, our selection of research methods was informed by our ontological and epistemological assumptions, and it is consistent with the research aims. The research design involved a break down of the central question of each study into its two interrelated aspects and, eventually, into the units of analysis (Säljö, 2009). The specificities of each study are elaborated in detail in the corresponding chapters. In general, we were interested in generating Table 3.1 Fundamental positioning and its most notable implications on this work Dimension Ontology

Position Realistidealist

Epistemology

Interpretative

Methodology

Idiographic

Human nature

Voluntarist

Axiology

Interpretative

View on theory and practice

Nondualistic

Clarification and example of the most notable implications Commitment to the existence of real entities, although not objectively knowable (Maxwell, 2004) E.g., integrative learning treated as something that exists, either we investigate it or not Multifaceted accounts of ‘reality’ E.g., integrative learning can be conceptualised in various ways Bases typically reflected in the interest in the participants’ individual perceptions, experiences, and co-constructed meanings (Cohen et al., 2011), albeit further aggregated E.g., interest in the micro-level actors’ epistemological beliefs Qualitative approach seeking understanding and explanation (rather than prediction and control), small-scale research, personal involvement of the researcher, investigation of the taken-for-granted, interest in micro-concepts (from individual perspectives to negotiated meanings) People are seen as initiators of their own actions rather than mechanically responding to contexts (Cohen et al., 2011) E.g., the actors of the instructional context have an active role and a responsibility in the integrative learning process (albeit often confined by the affordances of the context) E.g., the actors of the instructional context have an active role and a responsibility in the integrative learning process (albeit often confined by the affordances of the context) E.g., the participants are positioned as co-constructors of the research, their epistemological conceptions having actual impact in the development of the project Embracing the distinction between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ with an analytical purpose only (Guile, 2006) E.g., during data analysis, to distinguish the specificity of each kind of knowing, while acknowledging their intimate and even dynamic relationship

3.2 Rationale for the Methods Selection

47

and capturing rich data that would account for (a) the actors’ intersubjective assumptions, perceptions and expectations, and their actual behaviour (in the case of the studies in Chaps. 3 and 4), and (b) the actor’s responsiveness to each others’ reasons (in the case of the study Chap. 5). In both cases an in-depth qualitative approach appeared to be the most appropriate alternative for our purposes. First, in line with the explorative character of our research aims, we subscribed to a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Glaser 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to advance diverse conceptualisations of the relationship between theory and practice, based on the experiences, intersubjective interpretations, meanings, perceptions, and expectations of T-VET actors. Furthermore, we embraced an ideographic methodological basis, that is recognisable in our interest in the participants’ individual and negotiated perceptions, their experiences, and co-constructed meanings (Gillham, 2003; Cohen et al., 2011). In particular, individual views were relevant to us to the extent that they contributed to building the actors’ epistemological conceptions at a group level. In the studies in Chap. 4, particularly, the combination of qualitative techniques responded to our interest in both on-reflection recounts (e.g., of perceptions) and pre-reflective recounts (e.g., of behaviours). Both types of units of analysis may be expected to inform each other (to better grasp the meaning of people’s recounts, to validate those meanings and, when necessary, to signal inconsistences with respect to their self-reported views). In all, this research approach, can be inscribed within the phenomenological tradition (Given, 2008). In line with these purposes, the data was generated and collected using focus group discussions in combination with observations in natural empirical settings. Eventually, our exploration and developing understanding of the integrative learning construct (a) contributed to sharpening our research questions and (b) moved us towards a theory-driven investigation (Chap. 5). In this last piece of research, we chose to exploit our theoretical and analytic interest in Inferentialism as a lens for the study of integration. In the case of the study in Chap. 5, furthermore, the longitudinal approach was indicated to study the variation over time in students’ responsiveness to reasons. While responsiveness is observable during discursive exchanges among various actors (i.e., social interactions among students and their instructors), its variation was expected to emerge throughout a certain period. These reasons, together, justify the selection of (a) non-participatory observations (e.g., Adler & Adler, 1994) to capture responsiveness and (b) a repeated measures approach (e.g., Cohen et al., 2011) for capturing any longitudinal variation over time. For the three empirical studies, it is also true that the further selection of the techniques (for data collection and analysis) responds not only to the considerations explained so far (i.e., ontological, and epistemological position, research purpose, and research questions breakdown into units of analysis), but also derived from the affordances of the particular context of the investigation. This context is presented in the next section.

48

3.2.2

3 Methodology

Grounded Theory

As introduced in the previous subsection, the initial stages of this work were explorative. In the literature study (Chap. 2) we learnt about the state-of-the-art in research about integration and we were soon confronted with an epistemological problem. Here we came across several theoretical frameworks that other researchers had been employing. Previous research has (a) focused on other aspects of the integration of theory and practice (e.g., on facilitators) than it is our interest, (b) approached the question on integration from a different epistemological stance (e.g., a process-based view on professional knowledge), (c) studied integration at another level of analysis (e.g., connectivity at meso-level), or (d) imbedded the study in a very different context (e.g., the arts) than ours. Moreover, the use of theoretical and practical knowledge, how the forms of knowledge are acquired and validated, and even the amount of activity involved are expected to be context specific. For all these reasons, we considered that there was still no appropriate framework for our investigation to build on and, consequently, we adopted a grounded theory approach to research. Indeed, in the first empirical studies (Chap. 4), we deliberately avoided the use of any fixed theoretical framework, as we were interested in people’s personal epistemologies on the theory-practice relationship in our specific empirical context and we aimed to develop a framework that, we contend, was currently missing. Consequently, we embarked on theorising, based on the accounts and behaviours of the key actors in our empirical context. We propose that the grounded theory method Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Glaser, 1992, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) is appropriate to develop the framework we intended to, as it is compatible with (a) our interest in co-constructing meaning with the actors rather than imposing our views, and (b) our purpose to raise multiple perspectives to the abstract level of conceptualisation. While in Chap. 4, our approach was mostly inductive (as we were not trying to fit our findings into a pre-existing frame), we acknowledge the impossibility of freeing ourselves fully from theoretical and epistemological commitments, as well as analytic preconceptions. In this regard, Braun & Clarke (2006) state that the empirical data is never interpreted in an ‘epistemological vacuum’. In the same line, Mortelmans (2007) proposes that grounded theory neither starts form a priori frameworks, nor it starts from scratch; furthermore, the relationship between the present research effort and the existing literature, can be best described in terms of sensitising concepts, which are elaborated in Sect. 4.2. Besides the effort to acknowledge the role of sensitising concepts, we attempted to employ the idea of ‘bracketing’ (Mortelmans, 2007), i.e., the deliberate suspension of presuppositions until the analysis was completed, to eventually couple the research findings to existing frameworks. The studies reported in Chap. 4 yielded conclusions about conceptions of theory and practice, and about how the integrative learning process can be conceived. Concurrently, this explorative effort resulted in a justification for continuing research on integrative learning that adopts an inferentialist theoretical framework.

3.3 The Empirical Context

49

This justification constitutes an important output of these initial studies that not only serves our own research effort, but is also valuable for other researchers who are concerned with the issue of integration and who seek a conducive theoretical framework to build their research on.

3.2.3

The Role of Inferentialism in This Dissertation

In contrast to the data-driven studies (Chap. 4), the study reported in Chap. 5 is theoretically framed and, therefore, highly driven (to a large extent) by our theoretical or analytic interest in Inferentialism as a lens for the study of integration. Our rationale for adopting an inferentialist approach for the study of theory-practice integration hinges on the strong contribution of Inferentialism to resolving the epistemological problem, i.e., for constituting a means to analytically distinguish theoretical from practical knowledge without incurring into dichotomist thinking (Guile, 2006, 2010). Furthermore, prior empirical research in the context of informal statistical inference (Bakker & Derry, 2011) has advanced Inferentialism as a valuable theoretical resource to assist epistemological reflection on challenges in education. More specifically, the inferentialist view proposes that inferential relations and reasons are ‘the glue’ that make elements cohere or become integrated at a micro-level (Bakker & Hußmann, 2017). We not only ‘adopted’ Inferentialism in Chap. 5 seeking to operationalise this epistemological theory into an analytical tool; indeed, more than just a lens to analyse the data, Inferentialism constitutes in the first place the cornerstone of our theoretical framework. Firstly, Inferentialism is at the basis of the non-dualistic position we adopted about theory and practice. Secondly, it is at the basis of the very conception of ‘learning’ (in line with the mastery metaphor) and the conception of ‘integrative learning of theory and practice’ that the remainder of the study built on. Thirdly, it informed our methodological choices, including e.g., the selection of the empirical situations which became the object of our observations. Fourthly, it guided the interpretation of the data throughout the analysis phase. Finally, it assisted us in drawing conclusions and in the formulation of our claims, including hedging and acknowledgement of limitations.

3.3

The Empirical Context

The present section brings the particular empirical context into focus; we provide a description of the instructional context, next to a discussion of its relevance, and the rationale for its selection for our project. The considerations and descriptions are common to all empirical study reported in this book, i.e., the studies reported in Chaps. 4 and 5. In short, our investigation is embedded in technical vocational education in the field of chemical process technology (CPT).

50

3.3.1

3 Methodology

The Empirical Context as a Methodological Consideration

In this work, we are interested in the integrative learning of theory and practice as a phenomenon; it is the phenomenon that is central to us, not the particularities of the context (such as the imbedding of the instructional context in a regional educational system, or the trajectories of individual participants in consideration of their cultural and socio-economical backgrounds). This phenomenon centrality explains several choices we made throughout our project. For example, the fact that we delay the context description until the methods chapter, rather than making the context part of the problem in the introductory chapter. Obviously, the empirical context remains important; we do not attempt to make unhedged generalisations beyond the affordances of our methods and findings. Finally, the selection of the empirical context and the particular settings is far from contingent, rather its instrumental role responds to several reasons we provide in the following paragraphs.

3.3.2

The Broader Empirical Context

As already introduced, the empirical studies in this book took place in the context of technical vocational education and, more particularly, in alternating school-based and work-based learning at post-secondary and higher education levels, in the area of chemical process technology (CPT). The graduates of the CPT programmes, receive a qualification of process operator enabling them to work in various industrial sectors, such as: petrochemical, chemical, pharmaceutical, and energy recuperation. These alternating learning environments are often referred to as ‘dual-learning’, although this terminology may also denote other educational setups. In a broad sense, ‘dual learning’ refers to an instructional context that consists basically of two learning environments (i.e., the school and the workplace) with both differences and commonalities. Here, ‘the school’ regards non-compulsory formal education that provided by secondary schools (one-year specialisation) or to tertiary institutions (three-year professional bachelor). In its turn, ‘the workplace’ concerns an industrial site that is allowed to act as an education provider in collaboration with schools. To be considered a learning environment, the workplace is expected to offer students varied and challenging learning opportunities in terms of the available technology (variety of operations and equipment), the complexity of the manufacturing process (e.g., integrated units) and dedicated mentoring, as the main criteria. In the workplace, the instruction follows basically a cognitive-apprenticeship approach. In this micro-level context, the key actors are the students and their instructors. We contend that this CPT context is particularly appropriate for our study, considering that dual learning calls for a decoupling of forms of knowledge from learning environments (Sloane 2014). In such dual context, the ‘acquisition’ of theoretical knowledge (or ‘construction’ or ‘mastering’, depending on the learning

3.3 The Empirical Context

51

metaphor embraced) is not restricted to the school, such as practical knowledge is not restricted to the workplace. Indeed, the specificities of each physical learning environment are intrinsically coordinated so that the integration of kinds of knowledge is concurrent with learning, rather than an additional sequential step. Our interest in this particular context also resides in its pedagogical approach, which takes theory-practice integration as its central goal (Chap. 4), i.e., the co-instruction provided by both the school and the work environments deliberately aim at ‘coupling’ theory and practice at the level of the individual student (albeit to varying extents and intensities). Furthermore, this CPT context offers rich opportunities for study of theorypractice integration, owing to established scientific laws, continuous growth in technological innovation and a long tradition of an industry that is oriented to work-based learning. The chemical sector poses many challenges, among which we mention the demand for qualified operators who, in many cases, are expected to function as knowledge workers who are able to e.g., solve complex problems under hazardous conditions, take initiatives to prevent process upsets from occurring and contribute to long-lasting solutions in terms of productivity, safety and environmental issues. It becomes clear that these knowledge workers need to master much more than manual skills (as often believed) but, instead, they need to master a rich knowledge domain (or a ‘space of reasons’, in inferentialist terms) to a considerable depth and extent. Many operators in the chemical industry (in particular, if considering panel operators in a gas plant), need to dedicate several years to their professional development until they achieve a ‘mastery level’ of expertise, according to the companies’ estimation.

3.3.3

The Instructional Context and Its Key Actors

The dual CPT programme at post-secondary school level involves of a one-year intensive course that is open to graduates from any secondary school. Throughout this year, the students alternate twice (formerly three times) their attendance to school (mainly formal learning) with their presence in the workplace (mainly cognitive apprenticeship-based learning in a real manufacturing unit); furthermore, each apprenticeship period is preceded by one-week learning in a simulated learning environment. The simulated learning environment presents high fidelity if compared to the technology of a typical industrial facility, while the main differences reside in the absence of hazardous chemical compounds, the in-door location and thus absence of adverse weather conditions, and the relatively low psychological pressure given that mistakes do not lead to serious consequences (neither material damage, nor HSEQ-related consequences, i.e., with an impact on health, safety, environment or quality). The simulated learning period is mainly intended to develop acquaintance to working in an industrial setting, e.g., in relation to safety awareness, standard procedures and work permits. Additionally, the simulated environment

52

3 Methodology

is intended to develop some skill in performing common tasks, such as: first line maintenance (e.g., cleaning of filters, or dismounting and mounting piping fittings), lining up pump groups for start-up, and taking gas samples. The dual CPT programme at the higher education level consists of a one-year intensive specialisation within a three-year professional bachelor training in chemical process technology and is only accessible to students who completed the first two bachelor years. Just as in the first case described, these students also alternate formal education at school with cognitive apprenticeship in the workplace (albeit otherwise distributed in time). Instead of a simulated ‘mini-plant’, however, these students perform experiments at laboratory scale with the purpose of developing problem-solving competences when faced to unexpected circumstances; in these cases, the students are challenged to provide grounded explanations of the nature of the problems encountered, as well as grounded justifications for their solutions. Additionally, during this year, the students conduct a small research project that is assigned by each company and co-supervised by the school. The project typically consists of a real problem such as optimisation of steam usage of a whole production unit, or even reduction of cycle time of a batch process. Common to both cases, is the use of short tasks with several purposes, e.g., becoming acquainted with the installations, coupling much of the contents studied at school to the actual process equipment and its working, learning about new contents that were not handled at school (typically, for being very specific to a particular manufacturing process), learning to find information in various ways, and getting along with other people on the job (for any learning, collaborating or leisure). Also in both cases, students are granted access to the dual variant of these programmes only after a joint selection procedure carried out by the schools and the participating companies. On completion of their programmes, and despite their different trajectories, all graduates are equally treated when onboarding in a company; in other words, the higher education programme is not given any a priori distinction, rather each starting operator will show their own pace of development, which not necessarily holds a one-to-one relationship with their educational trajectory. The participants in our empirical studies are key actors in the described instructional context, i.e., the students, and their school-based and work-based instructors. We refer to the school-based instructors as the ‘tutors’ and to the work-based instructors as the ‘mentors’; in fact, the mentor is not the only person addressed as the instruction in the workplace is distributed among several colleagues. All participants were considered key actors in the studied instructional context, given our interest in the micro-level of the integrative learning phenomenon. The group of students consisted of youths aged 18–25 in the case of the post-secondary education level and aged 25–30 at the higher education level. Other students’ characteristics (such as gender, origin, ideology, or cultural and socio-economical background) were deliberately disregarded, as we contend that the knowledge about them does not contribute to the purpose of our research project. The group of tutors comprised teachers (at secondary school level) and lecturers (at tertiary school level) whose tasks are teaching (e.g., chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, instrumentation and automated process control, and mechanics) and supporting their students both at

3.3 The Empirical Context

53

school and at each student’s different workplace. These tutors had extended teaching experience and limited or no work experience in the industry. The group of mentors included operations team leaders from different chemical and petro-chemical companies, who combine their daily tasks in the production processes with the mentoring of students (regardless the particular learning programme and educational level) and starting operators. These mentors had extended experience in production (10–30 years), varying experience in mentorship (2–20 years) and limited or no formal pedagogical training. Most of these actors were connected to each other, i.e., at the time of the data collection, all participating students received tutoring both at school and at the workplace from one of the participating tutors, and received mentorship from others who either or not participated in our study. Students in CPT need to resort to domain-specific principles and laws (e.g., from chemistry, mechanics, and electricity) and to technical knowledge (e.g., instrumentation and control logics), when they describe a manufacturing process, the working principle of various pieces of equipment, the (automatic) process control and how one can intervene, and the principles of process safety. The workplace offers opportunities to learn that the school alone cannot, e.g., further sense of dimensions, insight into technical-practical limitations, confrontation to complex process integration, and the discovery of external factors, ranging from weather conditions to economic considerations. In this context, as it is further explained in Chap.5, the main activity is reasoning.

3.3.4

The Empirical Settings

In the instructional context just described, four empirical settings were selected for data collection purposes, as shown in Fig. 3.1. Firstly, the settings for focus group discussions pertain to the two studies reported in Chap. 4. Secondly, the settings for observation of interactive class presentations are part of the second study in Chap. 4. Thirdly, the settings for observation of formative-evaluative sessions correspond to the second study in Chap. 4 and, mostly, to the study in Chap. 5. Finally, the setting for field tours hosted observations that belong to Chap. 5.

3.3.4.1

Settings for Group Discussions

The focus group discussions took place at different locations. We visited various schools to discuss each time with the local students, around the table in a typical classroom; each student participated only once. We returned to the same schools to sit around the table with the tutors from different schools each time; these tutors were used to working together on curriculum issues and, therefore, also used to commute between each others’ schools. This also implies that each tutor participated in repeated occasions. Finally, we had access to different companies where local and visiting mentors participated each time in round the table discussions. As in the case

54

3 Methodology

Chap. 4 (GT Study 1)

Sengs for Focus Group Discussions

Chap. 4 (GT Study 2)

Sengs for Interacve Class Presentaons

Chap. 5 (Inferenalist Study)

Sengs for Evaluave-Formave Sessions

Sengs for Field Tours

Fig. 3.1 The empirical settings involved in each study (GT stands for grounded theory)

of the tutors, each mentor participated in repeated occasions. Unlike the tutors, most mentors did not know each other before and had never visited the other participating companies. In some cases, tutors not only worked together on curriculum issues across the boundaries of the schools they belonged to (also sharing syllabi and other specific pedagogical material), but there was also much collaboration between corps of tutors on the one hand and corps of mentors on the other hand. Most tutors and mentors appreciated the opportunity to participate in our investigation; they perceived the group discussions as forums for networking and exchange.

3.3.4.2

Natural Settings

Our rationale for the selection of natural settings, as opposed to laboratory research settings and as opposed to stand-alone simulation settings (see also Chap. 5), resides basically on three main advantages of the typical natural setting, i.e., that it can confer ecological validity to our claims (Cohen et al., 2011), that it is readily available (i.e., no need to design a setting, a case, a scenario or an intervention), and that it considerably reduces the burden to participants (e.g., time constraints).

3.3 The Empirical Context

55

The disadvantages of the natural setting, however, are that such strategies as member check need to be built in separately (i.e., not part of the main data collection effort), and that it may be overwhelming to attempt to embrace the full complexity (e.g., many concepts involved) while not abandoning the ambition to perform a finegrained analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Maxwell, 2004). Although natural settings are often believed to be incompatible with fine-grained analyses, we used authentic examples in their complexity while aiming at a significant degree of detail. We did so by focusing on what actually matters, by using research criteria such as the guidance of our own research questions, using our experience in the industry and using what is relevant for practitioners. In the case of a longitudinal investigation such as ours, the natural setting imposes an available time for activities that may not be compatible with the ideal duration of the data collection period (as estimated to observe the course of the phenomenon which is the object of the study).

3.3.4.3

Interactive Class Presentations

The students provided interactive class presentations either in a school laboratory or in a classroom; these were plenary sessions in which the presenter interacted both with their peers and the tutor. Each presentation included visual aids, such as projected slides or posters with flow diagrams representing the manufacturing process each student focussed on during their apprentice. These presentations were organised at the end of each apprenticeship period, so each student could share their experiences with their peers. The specificity of the content provided by the various companies was very different and, therefore, of interest for the peers in the audience (i.e., not every workplace can offer the same access to technology, nor the same learning opportunities). The presenter would start with a prepared presentation to picture a technical process (to varying levels of detail and complexity), then the audience (mainly the tutor) would take several opportunities to ask for reasons that trigger the use of concepts. In this way, the tutor would connect the presenter’s claims about a particular process to other processes that were studied by the students in the audience (while pointing to analogies and differences); the tutor would eventually guide the students to find overarching conclusions by themselves. The tutor overtly aimed to create expectations towards new contents, and to stimulate the students’ curiosity and inquisitive attitude.

3.3.4.4

The Formative-Evaluative Sessions

The formative-evaluative sessions typically take place in the workplace on a frequent basis. The instructional design gives these sessions a central role in the tutoring and mentoring of students in view of theory-practice integration. On the one hand, these sessions are intended to identify areas where the student requires more support (e.g., additional instruction or external regulation) and to evaluate their progress. On the other hand, these sessions provide a unique opportunity for

56

3 Methodology

integrative learning through social reasoning. Certainly, the data generated from such tripartite conversations is rich in terms of the use of concepts and chains of arguments that are spelled out during interactive descriptions and explanations of certain aspects of the technical process. In sum, these sessions generated rich data for our research purposes. Each session is centred on a student’s presentation, which is built throughout the programme and includes several visual aids, such as process flow diagrams (PFD), control loops, pictures of equipment internals and animations. The student provides descriptions of several aspects of the manufacturing process they are allocated to (e.g., overall flowsheet, raw materials, intermediate and final products, by-products, operation units such as distillation and extraction columns, equipment such as heat exchangers and pumps, and instruments such as flow meters and mass spectrometers). While the student presents such descriptions, the instructors typically ask all sorts of questions: seeking declarative knowledge, attempting to elicit a positive attitude towards working and learning and, most of all, engaging in reasoning. In so doing, both instructors strive to help the student to relate concepts and to nourish the inquisitive spirit they will ideally need in their further professional life. The added value of the workplace is in the sense of dimensions, the insight into practical limitations, the confrontation to intricated process integration and the discovery of external factors ranging from weather conditions to economic considerations. Indeed, during each exchange, the student is challenged to provide reasons for their assertions (justifications and implications), with more or less explicit links to ‘school stuff’ (for an illustration, refer to end of Sect. 5.3.4). Students in CPT need to build arguments when they describe the manufacturing process (underpinned by principles of chemistry and physical laws), the working principle of various pieces of equipment (based on mechanics and electricity), the automatic process control and how one can intervene (based on instrumentation and instrumented process control logics) and the principles of process safety. While the interactive presentations require that the interlocutors make judgements and give reasons, such making judgements is not per se equivalent to making decisions, nor is giving reasons necessarily equivalent to justifying one’s actions. In other terms, while it has been proposed that students’ vocational knowledge develops by both making judgements and taking action (e.g., Wenja et al., 2018), in our empirical context, however, such action is often only imagined, simulated, or may be entirely delayed. When we speak about ‘activity’ we refer to the act of reasoning and to the act of non-passively participating in discursive exchanges, but we do not necessarily refer to intentionally intervening as a result of a rational decision process. Most of the time, students in CPT do not have opportunities in the workplace to intervene in the operation activities; eventually, they participate for extended periods of time from a very peripheral position mainly as observers for whom part of the activity aspect remains hypothetical. In the CPT context (and particularly true for panel operators in a gas plant), learning is mainly about growing insight into why the process is as it is, how it could be better, what the near and far links are (usually combined) between various parts of the chemical process, how then one could predict the chained effects of a change,

3.4 Conclusion

57

and how one could be ahead of a process upset so that no intervention is needed at all. Concerning the latter point, practitioners in this field often assert, “a good team of operators does not need to take any manual action”. In this context, the main activity is reasoning. It becomes clear that, in this context, it is hard for researchers to find enough interesting episodes to observe (as the students are mainly observers themselves). To the extent that reasoning proceeds via ‘inner speech’, plain observation is not informative for the researcher. Contrarily, reasoning becomes observable when it proceeds through discursive exchanges; this is where the theoretical framework and the methodology meet.

3.3.4.5

The Field Tours

The actual chemicals processing plant or ‘the field’ (in the participants’ terms) hosted guided tours that we observed as well. Here the discursive exchanges continue, though on such occasions next to the actual equipment, i.e., during each plant tour a student guides their tutor and mentor around the operating equipment and receives questions and comments from them. The student, just as in an indoors setting, typically identifies equipment by name and/or function, explains working principles of such equipment, describes any chemical reaction going on, describes the internals of the equipment and explains the integration of various pieces of equipment in the manufacturing process. More than in an indoors setting, where the manufacturing process is represented by process flow diagrams (PFD), the actual plant triggers statements that emerge from sensory perceptions (e.g., about radiation heat, smell, or noise). Also, the actual field offers more details than a diagram about e.g., how the equipment is mounted (spatial disposition), relative dimensions of equipment, distances between pieces of equipment, or length of piping. Such details trigger new questions and comments that enrich the student-instructors’ conversations. The field tours were not audio-recorded during data collection for technical reasons (i.e., excessive noise and recorder not allowed due to potentially explosive atmosphere) but field notes were taken.

3.4

Conclusion

In this chapter, we presented the rationale for the methodological choices behind this book, as rooted on our ontological and epistemological assumptions. In so doing, we aimed to show methodological consistency and to provide the reader with a framework to understand our work (i.e., our analytical procedures, how we developed our claims, how we drew conclusions, and how we reflected on the limitations and implications).

58

3 Methodology

While the detailed elaboration on the research procedures (e.g., the proper instruments for data collection and the analytical techniques) was deferred to the corresponding Chaps. 4 and 5, the broader research methods were outlined in the present chapter. We discussed when and why it was more appropriate to appeal to a data-driven or to a theory-driven approach. The empirical context was presented as a methodological consideration. In this work, we are interested in the integrative learning of theory and practice as a phenomenon; it is the phenomenon that is central to us, not the particularities of the context (such as the imbedding of the instructional context in a regional educational system, or the trajectories of individual participants in consideration of their cultural and socio-economical backgrounds). Concurrently, the selection of the empirical context is far from contingent, rather its relevance and instrumental role responds to several reasons that were exposed along with the ‘thick description’ of the context. Such description started from broader considerations, to enter the instructional context in which the present work is embedded, to finally focus on the particular empirical settings for each part study. In expanding in such contextual descriptions, we aim to provide tools for generalisation of the research findings and conclusions. In Sect. 6.5, after having presented our empirical conclusions, we will return to these tools for generalisation and propose to what extent (and under which conditions) such generalisation is appropriate. Finally, we reserve for Chap. 6 a final methodological reflection.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Sage. Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 5–26. Bakker, A., & Hußmann, S. (2017). Inferentialism in mathematics education: Introduction to a special issue. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 395–401. Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 590–617. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge. Gillham, B. (2003). Case study research methods. Continuum. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2012). Constructivist grounded theory? Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 28–38. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine-Atherton. Guile, D. (2006). Learning across contexts. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, 251–268. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy (Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal explanations. Field Methods, 16, 243–264.

References

59

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. Mortelmans, D. (2007). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethode [Manual of qualitative research methods]. Acco. Säljö, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029030 Scott, D. (2016). Interpretivism as a theory of knowledge. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, & L. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research, 243. Sage. Sloane, P. F. E. (2014). Professional education between school and practice settings. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 397–425). Springer Netherlands. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Wenja, T., Heusdens Liesbeth K. J., Baartman Elly, & de Bruijn (2018). Knowing everything from soup to dessert: An exploratory study to describe what characterises students’ vocational knowledge. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13636820.2018.1437065

Chapter 4

Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

4.1

Introduction

Integration and integrative learning have been identified as being crucial to initial vocational learning and to the development of further professional expertise (Beckett, 2000; Gessler & Howe, 2015; Guile, 2006; Hiim, 2017; Tynjälä, 2008). This integration, moreover, has often been advanced in terms of paired entities, such as mind and world, school and workplace, theory and practice, concepts and experience, or formality and informality. Although all these pairs have been proposed to constitute the objects of integration, particular concern and debate have been devoted to the integration of theory and practice. Indeed, prior research has attributed a key role to the relationship between theory and practice in the context of professional learning (Beckett, 2000; Gessler & Howe, 2015), knowledge transfer in school-work transitions (Guile & Griffiths, 2001; Heinz & Taylor 2005; Raelin, 1997), and expertise development as an inherent part of lifelong learning (Tynjälä, 1999, 2008). Understanding this relationship is expected to lead to pedagogical advancement, in addition to providing new research perspectives and tools. Theoretical concepts rooted in actual professional practice are crucial in all vocations and professions today, as such concepts often concern descriptions of how and explanations of why, next to offering broader social perspectives on vocational practice (Hiim, 2017). In other words, a notion that vocational or professional knowledge consists largely of manual skills is highly questionable in a technological and complex society, given that a considerable number of vocational tasks require advanced practical and theoretical understanding. Therefore, the ‘recognition that vocational knowledge and high-level competence include theory’ (Hiim, 2017, p. 12) is of major significance in technical vocational education and training (T-VET). Despite the widely acknowledged relevance of theory-practice integration in T-VET, and the continuously growing body of research in this field,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7_4

61

62

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

little has been said about what such integration entails or how it proceeds (Barber, 2012). Moreover, this gap appears to be the result of (a) an unresolved epistemological debate concerning theory and practice (Hiim, 2017), and (b) a confusion of ‘process variables’ with ‘process conditions’ (Barber, 2012). We elaborate on these two issues in the following paragraphs. Concerning the first issue regarding the theory-practice integration, it has been observed that learners are often left either “locked into practice and cut off from theory or with the dilemma of attempting to ‘connect’ theory and practice” (Guile, 2006, p. 252). Based on reviews on epistemological perspectives on professional knowledge throughout history (Guile, 2006; Hiim, 2017), this observed phenomenon is proposed to be the result of an epistemological disagreement that has ensued extreme positions, i.e., Cartesian separations of theory and practice, dialectic syntheses, and oversimplifications of the relationship between those forms of knowledge (Guile, 2006). Understanding the various epistemological roots of pedagogical approaches (e.g., Hiim, 2017), however, is not straightforwardly informative about the conceptions and beliefs (in a psychological sense) of the micro-level actors in particular learning contexts. Indeed, these actors (e.g., students and their instructors) do not interpret professional knowledge through the received mainstream epistemological perspectives, but rather the actors coin their own perspectives. If we aim to further disentangle the theory-practice integration in any domain, the first step is to grasp how key actors in such a context conceive of theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, and the relationship between these forms of knowing. Consistently, the first investigation (Orozco et al., 2020) sought to uncover the various views people hold on theoretical and practical knowledge, and their views on how these forms of knowing relate to each other. This investigation was guided by two research questions, i.e., (1) How do key actors in T-VET conceive of theoretical and practical knowledge? and (2) What are these actors’ views on the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge?). The second issue regarding the theory-practice integration, pertains to insufficient conceptualisation. According to Barber (2012), although previous research has attempted to describe the process of integration, this has resulted in a ‘mere’ inventory of facilitators. At this point we ask: if facilitators are nothing more than ‘process conditions’ (rather than ‘process variables’), such that they do not describe the process itself, what does? Unfortunately, this question has been left unanswered. Past endeavours to theorise the ‘integration of learning’ in particular contexts and various learning environments (Barber, 2012) have resulted only in hierarchically ordered ‘types of integration’, while failing to unveil what is concealed within the concept of integration. This suggests that the lack of a conceptualisation of integrative learning is impeding further educational advancement. The latter issue is addressed by our second study (Orozco et al., 2019), which represents an effort to clarify the concept of integrative learning by focusing on theory and practice as core objects of such integration. In line with this aim, the central question guiding our investigation is: What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) in technical vocational education and

4.2 Sensitising Concepts, Distinctions, and Framing

63

training? More specifically, this study is intended to advance an empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP construct in initial T-VET by focusing on two distinctive, though related, aspects: the process of learning and the expected outcomes of this learning process. For both studies, it appeared particularly appropriate to select the empirical context of alternating school-based and work-based learning in T-VET (often referred to as dual learning), as explained in Chap. 3. More specifically, we focused on the field of chemical process technology (CPT). These in-depth qualitative studies are interested in the micro-level of education (i.e., the instructional level). Both research questions in the first study are concerned with the actors’ perceptions and epistemological beliefs as units of analysis, i.e., students and instructors’ perspectives, intersubjective interpretations, conceptions, and expectations about how knowledge is generated, validated, shared and used (Orozco et al., 2020). Beyond the first research question in the first study, which primarily seeks description, these investigations aim at hypothesis generation (i.e., theory formation based on empirical data). To this purpose, a grounded theory approach to research is indicated Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998); indeed, rather than relying on an a priori theoretical framework, our research efforts were primarily informed by the data. Additionally, we acknowledge that our research was informed by existing ‘sensitising concepts’ (Mortelmans, 2007), which we present in the next section. The next section builds a common ground for the reader’s further interpretation of our findings; such common ground consists of sensitising concepts, vocabulary, distinctions, and a framing of the aspects at stake in the conceptualisation of the ILTP.

4.2

Sensitising Concepts, Distinctions, and Framing

In this section, rather than presenting a fixed a priori theoretical framework, we articulate several sensitising concepts (Mortelmans, 2007). These insights draw upon existing knowledge and have inescapably informed our interpretations and conclusions. In presenting the ideas to which we subscribe, as recommended by the methodological literature (e.g., Gillham, 2003; Mortelmans, 2007), we acknowledge that our analysis of the empirical data did not proceed in a vacuum, while we equip the readers with the necessary instruments to understand our interpretations and construct their own ones. For a more extensive elaboration, the reader is referred to Chap. 2. Firstly, we connect epistemological considerations of professional knowledge (Guile, 2006, 2010; Hiim, 2017) to the actors’ personal epistemologies (Billett, 2009; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012). Secondly, we introduce the notion of forms of knowledge in terms of vertical and horizontal knowledge (Bernstein, 1999; Young & Muller, 2014), and link it to the the theory of cultural mediation (Vygotsky, 1987) through the concept of a ‘zone of proximal development’.

64

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Thirdly, we address the notion of integration in terms of its objects (i.e., what is to be integrated), its agents (i.e., who performs the integration), and the interrelated aspects of integrative learning (i.e., process and outcome).

4.2.1

Epistemological Assumptions: From Legacies to Personal Conceptions

In the literature on (vocational) education, various descriptions of professional knowledge have been suggested (Barber, 2012; Gessler & Howe, 2015; Guile, 2006; Guile & Griffiths, 2001; Sappa et al., 2016; Tynjälä, 2008). Moreover, each description relies (either overtly or implicitly) on a particular perspective professional knowledge. Understanding such perspectives, which are often endeavours to resolve the theory-practice dilemma, can cast new light on the concept of the ‘theorypractice integration’. As explained in Chap. 2, separate historical reviews on (mainly) philosophical legacies (Guile, 2006; Hiim, 2017) made it possible to identify several epistemological stances that have: (a) informed the conception of what professional knowledge can be taken to be, (b) proposed the extent to which a profound interplay between theoretical and practical forms of knowledge may occur, and (c) suggested which learning activities are more likely to promote the ‘acquisition’ of professional knowledge. Therefore, the perspective we embrace is consequential if we aim to understand how students learn theory and practice in an integrative way. Given that various perspectives appear to have a different power to resolve the theory-practice duality, they are not equally opportune to researching the phenomenon of integration. In Chap. 2, we concluded that we need to embrace a non-dualistic view on theory and practice, that still allows us to maintain the distinction between them at an analytical level. Perspectives rooted in social practice and inference arise as the most conducive to understanding integration (Guile, 2006, 2010). The epistemological legacies on professional knowledge evoked so far pertain to education at any the macro, meso and micro levels. However, the more we focus on the micro-level (seen as the instructional context and its everyday teaching and learning activities), the more the personal epistemologies of the very actors can be expected to be determinant of the conceptualisation and the course of the ILTP. As explained in Chap. 2, personal epistemology refers to people’s beliefs about the nature and origins of knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 2012). In line with Barger et al. (2016), we employ the term ‘personal epistemology’ to refer to sets of epistemic beliefs (e.g., dogmatism). For a more thorough elaboration of the topic of epistemological beliefs, we refer the reader to Chap. 2. Altogether, the concepts regarding personal epistemologies (e.g., their meaning, kinds, and features) informed our expectation that the students’ epistemological beliefs play a role in the course of the ILTP (i.e., students’ assumptions contribute to determining their capacity to integrate theory and practice). Both research

4.2 Sensitising Concepts, Distinctions, and Framing

65

questions in our first empirical study resonate with our interest in (inter)personal epistemologies; this first study focusses strongly on the actors’ beliefs about the nature of theoretical and practical knowledge (e.g., what distinguishes them or not), as well as on their arguments to accept knowledge validity.

4.2.2

Forms of Knowledge

Before passing to our empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP in a particular context, we explored the literature for conceptions of theory and practice and the relationship between them. We could go far back in time and into ancient philosophy to discuss, for example, Aristotle’s ideas about epistêmê and technê (Parry, 2020), but we decided to limit the scope to more recent authors (e.g., Bernstein, 1999; Vygotsky, 1987; Winch, 2013; Young, 2003b) in order to stay closer to our research purposes. For example, a well know and much praised conceptualisation is Bernstein’s (1999) distinction of ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ knowledge and discourses, which has further been extended and developed by Young (2003a, b). It has been suggested that there is a complex distinction between two kinds of theoretical knowledge depending on how they develop, i.e., either ‘vertically’ through a hierarchical expansion of a conceptual structure, or ‘horizontally’ through formation of a new, parallel theoretical stem (Young & Muller, 2014). This particular distinction enters sociological debates about professional knowledge; it is important not to obscure such debates by just equating near distinctions to each other (e.g., regarding the ‘pure versus applied’ distinction’ as identical to the ‘theory and practice’ distinction). Another important conceptualisation resides in Vygotsky’s postulation of how structurally distinctive forms of knowledge may relate to each other (Guile, 2010). In this view, horizontal knowledge (referring to practical and everyday knowledge) is more segmented than structured, whereas vertical knowledge (referring to theoretical knowledge) is organised according to some particular knowledge structure (Guile, 2006). This implies (a) that only theoretical concepts can be located in a system of interconnected concepts, and (b) that knowledge is more susceptible to transcending its context of origin to the extent that it is more structured (Guile, 2010). Vygotsky suggested that these forms of knowledge grow towards one another (Guile 2010) under the learners’ social and culturally mediated activity.

4.2.3

The Notion of Integration: Setting the Scene for Integrative Learning

In order to proceed to the empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP, we need some framing of what is at stake (although we remain open for emergent findings that question and modify this preliminary framing). To build such a guiding and loose

66

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

frame, we pre-reflected on the following queries: (a) What do students integrate?, (b) Who are the agents of integration?, (c) What are the main aspects of integrative learning that need to distinguished for a fine grained analysis?

4.2.3.1

Objects of Integration

In Sect. 2.1.3. we already raised the question and discussed the idea of being explicit about what we intend to integrate. We acknowledge that different objects, taken together, may provide a holistic view and harmonise with each other to add different dimensions to the concept of integration. Indeed, while our interest is in the integration of theory and practice, it may also be expected that students need to (deliberately) connect, e.g., contexts, disciplines, learning strategies, formality and informality, rationales, conceptions, and concepts. We emphasise that other proposed objects can be taken as complementary, thus not necessarily incompatible, with our focus on theory and practice. Also, as explained in Chap. 2, we choose not to define ‘theory’ (or theoretical knowledge) and ‘practice’ (or practical knowledge) a priori. This is in line with our aim to conceptualise the ILTP empirically, by considering the actors’ personal epistemologies, in the particular context of study.

4.2.3.2

Agents of Integration

Having discussed the question of what is to be integrated, we turn next to a question that arises when building a notion of integration. This refers to who performs the integration, or, in other words, who are the agents of the integrative learning process. It is ultimately for the students to reconcile everything they learn, as well as how they engage in learning in different contexts and situations. Such propositions about learner centrality are in line with a constructivist view on learning and find support in extensive agreement among scholars on who carries out (albeit to varying extents) the integrative learning activities. Indeed, it has been proposed that it is the students who act as the agents of integration (Billett, 2008, 2009; Cedefop, 2015; Tynjälä, 2013). This is, however, not to deny the wide range of contextual factors (e.g., affordances of the learning environments) and essential mediating tools (Tynjälä, 2008), such as the guidance of a more knowledgeable person, that play a role in the process of integration.

4.2.3.3

Integrative Learning as Process and as Outcome

To complete this section about the preliminary notion of integration, we acknowledge both the process and the outcome aspects of integrative learning. The need to distinguish process from outcome as two distinctive units of analysis arises from both theoretical and methodological considerations, given our aim of disentangling

4.4 Methods and Procedures

67

the ILTP construct. When seeking to theorise the concept of integrative learning, it is necessary to distinguish the kind of questions that are raised in this regard. Rather than asking ‘whether’ students integrate learning, a more relevant question concerns ‘how’ they do so (Barber, 2012). This ‘how’ question refers to a process, whether in the short term or the long term. At the same time, Barber points out that the ‘integration of learning’ can be seen as ‘a primary outcome’ of education (Barber, 2012) or, in other words, as a learning objective. This proposition confers a second nature to integrative learning as, beyond the process aspect, it also recognises the outcome aspect. Nevertheless, the mere proposition does not provide any simple a priori means of discriminating between process and outcome. In echoing John Dewey, it has been claimed that ‘the process and goal of education [read learning] are one and the same thing’ (Segers & Van den Haar, 2012, p. 55).

4.3

Research Questions

Up to this point, we have presented a justification for our initial investigations, acknowledged the perspectives and sensitising concepts informing our interpretation of the empirical data, and constructed a preliminary notion of ‘integration’ to increase awareness of and sensitivity to what is involved within this topic. As explained before, the studies presented in this chapter respond to a need for conceptualisation of the ILTP construct; in line with this, the first study (Orozco et al., 2020) was guided by two research questions, i.e., (1) How do key actors in T-VET conceive of theoretical and practical knowledge? and (2) What are these actors’ views on the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge?). In second study (Orozco et al., 2019), in its turn, was guided by the broad research question: What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice in technical vocational education and training? We broke this question down into its two interrelated aspects: the process of learning and the expected outcome of this learning process.

4.4

Methods and Procedures

Rather than borrowing any a priori framework, the two studies presented in this chapter proceeded in a data-driven fashion, according to a grounded theory approach (see Sect. 3.2.2). In Chap. 3, we elaborated on the research methodology behind all the empirical work in this book (i.e., our ontological and epistemological assumptions, the rationale for the methods selection, and a thorough description of the empirical context including the characteristics of the participants). In the present section, we present particularities of each study, i.e., the distribution of participants into various settings, and the research procedures including the data collection and analysis techniques.

68

4.4.1

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

The Participants in the CPT Context

The two investigations share the same instructional context, as described in Sect. 3.3.3, but differ in the settings for data collection selected, as described in Sect. 3.3.4. Initially, all companies and schools concerned with dual-CPT at the time of the investigation were addressed in order to recruit participants to our studies; all the ones that accepted to participate were involved. Among these companies, the mentors were selected by internal gatekeepers. Among these schools, the whole population of tutors and students was invited to participate. In a second wave of data collection, a selection of participating companies proceeded mainly on a purposive basis (in consideration of these companies’ pioneering role in co-designing alternating learning environments and their intentionality towards integrative learning). Next, the human resources managers in these companies identified and recommended the most experienced and engaged mentors. In the case of schools, the entire population of students and tutors concerned with the dual-CPT course was again invited to participate. All participants joined the study on a voluntary basis after granting formal informed consent. The study received a final positive clearance from the University Research Ethical Committee before the start of the data collection. In total, 48 different key actors in dual T-VET (students, tutors, and mentors) joined this investigation to participate in the qualitative data collection. Most students were at the post-secondary level in three different schools, while only a minority was at the higher educational level in one tertiary school. In the case of the tutors, most of them were coming from four different schools, while few from one tertiary school. The mentors were part of four different chemical (or petrochemical) companies. In Sect. 3.3.3, we described the profile of the participants in more detail. Figure 4.1 summarises the number and distribution of participants; it also shows whether they participated in one or more focus group discussions (FGD), serial focus group discussions (sFGD), interviews (INT), interactive class presentations (ICP), formative-evaluative sessions (FES).

4.4.2

Data Collection Design: Methods, Techniques, and Organisation

The empirical investigation proceeded according to a qualitative approach with method triangulation. We selected focus groups as a first data-collection technique (Cohen et al., 2011), as we were interested in the participants’ intersubjective interpretations, perceptions, and experiences; also, it was reasonable to expect that the negotiation process during discussions would yield much richer accounts and illustrations (Cohen et al., 2011) than single interviews alone would do. Eventually, one focus group discussion with tutors had to be split into two individual semi-

4.4 Methods and Procedures

69

T-VET in Chemical Process Technology

PostSecondary School

21 students FGD (Studies 1 & 2)

Higher Educaon

Onboarding of new operators in companies

3 students FGD (Studies 1 & 2)

6 students ICP (Study 2) 4 tutors sFGD (Studies 1 & 2) 3 tutors ICP & FES (Study 2)

2 tutors INT (Studies 1 & 2)

9 mentors sFGD (Studies 1 & 2) 3 mentors FES (Study 2)

Fig. 4.1 Overview of participants in the data collection activities. (Adapted from Orozco et al., 2019)

structured interviews (Cohen et al., 2011) due to practical constraints. In addition, we aimed to obtain more insight into how the participants proceed (i.e., how they reason and eventually act or, at least, how they articulate potential actions). Therefore, we conducted non-participatory observations (Adler & Adler, 1994) at school and in the workplace. Such research design allowed a dialogue between the two data collection techniques, with each providing its own insights. The qualitative data collection proceeded in two waves, as show in Fig. 4.2. The first wave yielded the data for studies 1 and 2, while the data generated during the second wave was reserved for study 2 only. The empirical settings were described in Sect. 3.3.4.

70

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP Data Collecon - Wave 1

Serial Focus Group Discussions

Data Collecon - Wave 2 Single Focus Group or Interview

Students

Tutors in Post-Second.

Session 1 N=3

Session 2 N=4

Session 3 N=3

Mentors

Session 1 N=5

Session 2 N=5

Session 3 N=5

Tutors in Higher Educaon

Interacve Class Presentaons

Formave -Evaluave Sessions

5 Focus Groups N = 4 to 6

3 observaons

3 observaons

N = 4 to 5 present./obs.

N = 4 to 5 present./obs.

Field Tours

2 Interviews

Study 1 Study 2

Fig. 4.2 Overview of the data collection techniques as applied. (Adapted from Orozco et al., 2019) Table 4.1 Serial focus group discussions: recurrent sessions with mentors and tutors separately Session 1 Exploration

e.g., folk conceptions on T&P e.g., beliefs on the goal of dual learning in terms of T&P

Task Member checka and preparation e.g., select an operation or process segment; analyse aspects in a given matrix

Session 2 In-depth discussion e.g., discuss task: How to distinguish T&P aspects

Task Member checka and preparation e.g., select an operation or process segment; prepare an explanation for a role play

Session 3 Elaboration & examples

Task Member checka

e.g., interactive explanation (role play mentorresearcher); role play analysis by the group

e.g., in what way was participation useful e.g., what kind of feedback is expected from this study

a

Member check of previous session’s summary and researcher’s interpretations, and input for researcher to adjust following session’s schedule (when applicable).

4.4.3

Procedure for Data Collection and Analysis

The participants were divided according to their roles to take part of the focus groups; there were five groups of students, two groups of tutors and one group of mentors. Except for the students (who participated only once), the focus group discussions were arranged in series of three sessions: each session with nearly the same participants but each with a different purpose (i.e., exploration, in-depth discussion, and elaboration and exemplification). Between the sessions, the participants completed short assignments. Table 4.1 shows this serial approach, which allowed us to screen the data obtained between two sessions and so prepare to: build on previous discussions, refine claims, elaborate on judgements, illustrate with concrete examples, and check interpretations.

4.4 Methods and Procedures

71

The actual instruments used during the focus group discussions are presented in Sect. 4.8. The following are examples of the type of questions asked during the focus group discussions.: (1) “What should these students ideally achieve in their programme? How would you describe the ideal goal?”, corresponding to session 1 with mentors (or with tutors) to explore their perceptions of the goal of learning and their conception of ‘integrated knowledge’; (2) “In what ways could they learn this specific job by attending school only, thus without the workplace?”, extracted from the schedule used in the single session with students; (3) “In your course description you can read that dual learning entails ‘learning theory through practice’. What does this mean to you? Give examples”, also from the students’ session. Also, we elicited the participants’ conceptions on theory and practice (and how these relate to each other) by provoking discussions with a number of statements on which the participants had to comment (and provide a particular example to support their position), for example: “Theories are self-explanatory”, “Practice serves to validate theories”, “One can integrate theory into practice but not practice into theory” and “Theory and practice are two sides of the same coin”. While the focus groups (90 minutes each) were audio-recorded to be later transcribed, field notes were taken during the observations, i.e.: the class presentations (15–45 minutes each) and the evaluative-formative sessions (60 to 135 minutes each). These field notes were assisted by a loosely structured observation scheme. We emphasise that our interest throughout this study was at the group level (in line with the use of focus group discussions, as only two individual interviews were conducted) and, consequently, we only make claims at the group level, rather than claims about individuals’ conceptions. The intertwined phases of data collection and preliminary analysis allowed us to estimate that data saturation had been achieved for the purpose of the inductive analysis. All transcriptions and field notes were further analysed (assisted by qualitative analysis software) in successive coding phases. We appealed to the constant comparison method (Mortelmans, 2007) and, more particularly, we used the principles of ‘thematising meanings’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006) as a tool within the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this way, we sought patterns in the data, i.e., we incorporated the data gradually in successive open and axial coding phases in order to render the themes progressively richer and more accurate. Subsequently, we performed the selective coding assisted by visualisations (Miles & Huberman, 1994), as well as memos and annotations (Mortelmans, 2011). Throughout this analytical process, we kept records of the coding steps we took, including the bases on which coding nodes where created, merged, re-labelled or abandoned. While the coding was performed by the first author alone, all categories were discussed with the second author and any doubtful instances resolved in mutual agreement. The activities of data collection and analysis were inevitably informed by the researchers’ personal epistemology. Some strategies to minimise biased interpretations and decisions were the articulation of sensitising concepts and acknowledgement of preferences (Gillham, 2003; Mortelmans, 2007), and the application of tools

72

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

for “integrity against preferences” (Gillham, 2003, p. 28–36). For example, we looked for discrepant data, discussed among the authors about the progress and result of the data analysis (peer consultation), and checked our interpretations, ideas, and explanations with the participants (member check).

4.5

Results of the First Study

In this section we address the two research questions of our first empirical study (Orozco et al., 2020). Firstly, we attend to the question of how key actors in T-VET conceive of theoretical and practical knowledge and respond by providing an inventory of various forms of theoretical and practical knowledge (including an analysis of the categorisation criteria, and a qualitative assessment of the categories). Next, we turn to the question of these actors’ views on the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge. To this, we respond by mapping the interrelationships between the forms of knowledge (including a consideration of who the agents performing the integrative activities are).

4.5.1

Several Forms of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge

The actors’ individual recounts and their group negotiations denote what counts as theoretical knowledge and as practical knowledge for each group of actors. From the various discourses taken together, we distinguished several forms of knowledge in terms of ‘theory’ (i.e., pure, situated, self-constructed, and implicit) and various forms in terms of ‘practice’ (i.e., observational, functional, and cunning). The labels given to these categories remain as close as possible to the actors’ vocabulary and synthesise the features by which each form was described during the discussions, as shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. In order to classify pieces of knowledge into forms of ‘theory’ or ‘practice’ (and their sub-forms), the participants resorted to several criteria or dimensions, including: (a) the physical location of the learning environment, (b) the timing and purpose of the learning, (c) the perceived applicability and (d) the extent to which a piece of knowledge can be visualised. The following quotes, taken from various groups discussions with students, illustrate the four classification criteria often employed (Orozco et al., 2020): Physical location of the learning environment: To me, practice is everything except what you get in the classroom. . .you could put it that way. Timing of learning and purpose: There’s a small sheet about how to operate the machine that processes the samples. You can see that sheet as theory, because you have to read it and understand it. But to me it’s practice, because you read it while you’re following the steps.

4.5 Results of the First Study

73

Table 4.2 Forms of ‘theoretical knowledge’ Forms of theoretical knowledge Pure theory

Applied general theory

Situated theory

Self-constructed theory

Implicit theory

Features Hardly ever engaged consciously Often equated to performing calculations Generally applicable Books as main source The school as the primary learning environment Needed to reason Learnt primarily at school Assumed to be readily transferable Seen in opposition to pure theory Seen as a condition for acquiring practical knowledge In situ knowledge Often describes cause-and-effect relationships The most fundamental knowledge accessible to operators Codified and explicit Learnt by referring to codified sources; refined through experience High perceived applicability The workplace as primary learning environment The result of intentionally organised, purposeful experiences Origin in the actors themselves Driven by a pressing need Supports further operational activities Personal cause-and-effect constructions to explain observed phenomena Multiplicity, (often) contradictory

Whose conception Mentors, tutors, students

Tutors, students

Mentors, students

Mentors

Students

Perceived applicability: [. . .] and later, you try to do it [processing a sample] without the instructions, but you still have the instructions in case you get lost. So, for me, the instructions belong to practice, because you use them as an aid for doing practical things. Extent of visualisation: You get the theory there [instruction in the workplace] ... and you see it in practice, because you’re there and they give you the theory of how it works, but you see it all happening before your eyes. But when you get the theory in the classroom, you have no image.

These classification criteria (or dimensions), although quite consistently used, do not provide mutual exclusive, sharp categories. On some occasions, the same piece of knowledge was categorised differently, depending (a) on which dimension happens to deserve more consideration at a certain point, and (b) on a comparison to a second piece of knowledge. Apparently, the pieces competed for a place in a category (i.e., only the closest one to the definition of the dimension entered the category, while the more distal one had to find a new home). Moreover, some people

74

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Table 4.3 Forms of ‘practical knowledge’ Forms of practical knowledge Observational practice

Functional practice

Cunning practice

Manual practice

Features Knowledge of what happens and plausible reasons why Often equated with accumulated experiences Acquired primarily through active observation of other people and events, but not through the learner’s own action More general than context-specific The workplace as the primary learning environment Relevance associated with noticing details, triggering reasoning and reducing levels of abstraction Evolving nature in the longer run: From observational and cognitive to hands-on and automatic Readily usable as input for routine operations and problemsolving Pertains to the operation of equipment, rather than its design Specific or general, depending on the focus Acquired in part through scenarios and simulations Devious or deceptive Learnt over time through trial-and-error Responds to a logic of the workplace by which the goal justifies the means Hands-on motor skills (rather than knowledge)

Whose conception Mentors, tutors, students

Mentors, tutors

Students

–

seemed to classify pieces of knowledge only when prompted to do so, while others appear to have reflected on the classification before. Overall, the various forms of knowledge arise as parts of a complex set: While there are many instances of fragmentation into categories and sub-categories, in other cases no forms of knowledge can be distinguished at all, because they are too entangled.

4.5.2

The Relationships Between Forms of Knowledge

The relationships between the various forms of theoretical and practical knowledge emerged as a set of recurrent activities that are usually performed by multiple agents. Amongst the most prevalent relationships that seem to relate forms of knowledge to each other, we found: application, conversion, explanation, giving meaning, interpretation, putting into perspective, representation, understanding (in terms of the resolution of inconsistencies) and validation. In most cases, the relationship is perceived to be unidirectional (except for interpretation). Table 4.4 offers an overview of these relationships and their main features, while we elaborate on these results in the following paragraphs.

4.5 Results of the First Study

75

Table 4.4 Relationships between forms of knowledge (continued) Relationships in terms of activities Application

Broadening

Conversion

Deepening

Explanation

Giving meaning

Interpretation

Features Involved primarily job-related tasks such as process monitoring and problem solving Use of knowledge in closely corresponding tasks Students are not expected to apply their knowledge by themselves in the workplace (as they only participate peripherally in the activities of others) The ‘broadening’ of pure theory at the workplace through observational practice Often facilitated by tasks, it requires the guidance of the mentor or a colleague By broadening some elements of observational practice have the power to enrich the understanding of pure theory Only a small part of the conversion of one form of knowledge into the other is done by the students and the operators in general The major part of pure theory is converted into situated theory by engineering suppliers and in-house engineers Unidirectional Referred to as part of the broader learning process Appears at instances in which one first observes in practice and subsequently refers to the theory to ‘deepen’ that understanding Frequently highlighted activity by all groups of actors Often seen as an ability to identify plausible cause-and-effect relationships, e.g., in using situated theory to help students explain their observations, they develop practical knowledge that is grounded and that triggers further reasoning Concerns finding arguments in pure theory for giving reasons for the specificity of instances of applied general theory Concerns giving reasons for observational practice by appealing to several forms of theory The meaning of knowledge as a source of interest and motivation amongst students, e.g., observational practice providing meaning to relatively abstract forms of knowledge that are based on numbers, magnitudes, and symbols Making knowledge meaningful often conceived of as: (a) acquiring a feeling for magnitudes, (b) distinguishing and interpreting scaled and non-scaled diagrams or (c) rewording a concept in other terms, or relating the concept to an associated concept that is easier to represent mentally A ‘backward’ relationship with which to question and revise prior knowledge Only when there is interaction with the chemical process, the feedback towards ‘observational practice’ appears (i.e., the response of the process is considered) Performed by students only through social learning with the full operators Triggered by challenges posed by the chemical process or by external factors such as weather conditions or economic considerations (continued)

76

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Table 4.4 (continued) Relationships in terms of activities Putting things into perspective

Recalling

Understanding

Validation

Features Observational practice helps students to understand the limitations of theory, e.g., whenever there is a mismatch between their observations and what they would have expected based on the theory A new perspective is often revealed when ‘external factors’ are engaged in the explanations, i.e., site-specific factors or in situ considerations that do not pertain to general process technology (e.g., chemical process integration) A challenging step for the student that does not occur spontaneously and that requires the assistance of the mentor and colleagues Distinguished as a connecting activity on its own Observational practice claimed to assist the recall of theoretical knowledge, regardless of whether recalling is related to understanding There coexist different conceptions of what it means to understand something, e.g., at least four conceptions amongst the students alone: • Resolving an inconsistency or a contradiction • The ability to form an image of the object of understanding • The ability to provide explanations • Spontaneously getting used to something just by doing it repeatedly Observational practice (which was often equated to accumulated experiences) was regarded as confirming or validating what had been learnt before (by providing evidence) Observational practice seen a source of evidence that students may need to value the corresponding theory, to confirm that theoretically described phenomena ‘actually exist’, and, finally, to validate theoretical knowledge and accept it as true (at least provisionally)

Several instances suggest, as mentioned before, that multiple agents are simultaneously responsible for many of the connecting activities. For example, according to the mentors, it is mainly the engineering suppliers and in-house engineers who convert pure theory into situated theory, while only a minor fraction of such conversion is carried out by the students or the operators. Also, it appears that students get scarce opportunities to apply forms of knowledge actively and independently. Indeed, rather than applying their knowledge by themselves in the workplace, the students are expected to participate peripherally in the activities of others. Concurrently, the functional practice of students seems mainly limited to if-then scenarios, and their decision-making and actions remain hypothetical. These latter findings are in line with students’ virtual lack of references to application. Explanation is one of the activities that all groups of actors often brought forth. For instance, the relationship between situated theory, on the one hand, and observational or functional practice on the other, appeared to be conceived as the activity of explaining and identifying plausible cause-and-effect relationships. In different terms, students claimed that they use situated theory to build explanations for their observations and that, in so explaining, they develop practical knowledge that is underpinned (and that triggers further reasoning). Furthermore, according to the

4.5 Results of the First Study

77

actors’ claims, various forms of theory enable students to understand ‘observational practice’, as they use theory in their argumentation when requested to give reasons: this latter finding suggests a clear connection between explanation and understanding. Two closely related activities were reported to connect forms of knowledge to ‘external factors’ (such as feedback from process parameters in the manufacturing process or weather conditions); one of such activities is putting things into perspective, the other is interpretation. The activity of interpretation, in particular, stands out for being considered a ‘backward relationship’ (i.e., it enables to question and revise prior knowledge). Indeed, the actors’ recounts reveal that the responses from the process call for interpretation by the panel operator, during the interaction with the physico-chemical process, and that such interpretation involves situated theory and/or observational practice. Yet, it also appeared that students can only perform such relationship if they engage in social learning with the full operators. Concurrently, it was suggested that students can better understand the limitations of theory by putting forms of theory into perspective through comparison with e.g., observational practice. In general, such perspective seems to become more visible when external factors become part of the explanations, and often when there is an apparent mismatch between the students’ observations and their predictions. Furthermore, most actors agreed that practice provides the elements for which theory fails to account (e.g., actual chemical selectivity, or the production of by-products in a reactor). Although the student was acknowledged to be the agent who accomplishes this activity of consideration and interpretation of factors, this was also reported to be particularly challenging, requiring the assistance of the mentor or more experienced peers, and not expected to happen spontaneously. The learning of various forms of knowledge was often referred to as a phased process, of which the deepening activity was mentioned as an important part. Furthermore, although it was frequently claimed that ‘theory comes first’, also several instances surfaced in which this order was inversed. For example, various actors asserted that the students, when learning the basic working principles of industrial process equipment, often observe the practice first, and next refer to the theory to ‘deepen’ the initial understanding. While all groups of actors referred to the relationship between forms of knowledge as ‘understanding’, they seemed to hold different conceptions of what it means to understand something, as this concept was used ambiguously. We found at least four conceptions of ‘understanding’ amongst the students alone: (a) the action of resolving an inconsistency or a contradiction, (b) the ability to form an image of something, either when we attempt to picture what we are trying to understand or when we actually see it, (c) the ability to provide explanations, (d) spontaneously getting used to something we are confronted with in repeated occasions. Finally, the relevance or meaning of knowledge was advanced as a source of motivation and interest among students. Some students found pure theory meaningless, while proposing that observational practice assists them in giving meaning to more abstract forms of knowledge that deal with numbers, magnitudes, and symbols. In its turn, the validation activity was raised not only to connect observational practice (considering that it provides empirical evidence for theories), but also as a

78

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

4 2

pure theory

1

3 7

6

9

applied general theory

8 13

11

5

observational practice

10 14

functional practice

15

12 situated theory

cunning practice 17

16 self-constructed theory

No. 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Activity Explaining Explaining Broadening Deepening Giving meaning Recalling Representing Putting into perspective Validating Getting used Interpreting Applying Explaining

Agent ZPD ZPD ZPD Students Students Students ZPD ZPD ZPD Students ZPD ZPD ZPD

implicit theories

No. 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Activity Putting into perspective Validating Recalling Representing Applying Applying Putting into perspective Converting Explaining Recalling Representing Application Explaining Interpreting Resolving inconsistences

Agent ZPD ZPD Students ZPD Students ZPD ZPD Engineers ZPD Students ZPD Operators ZPD ZPD Students

Fig. 4.3 Map of integrating activities

means of confirmation that theoretically described phenomena ‘actually exist’ and ‘make sense’. However, in some cases, the students were not quite interested in validation at all, or revealed that they tend not to question the explanations they receive, as they do not dare to do so. In these cases, the students appeared to appeal to the mentor’s authority and just accept the veracity of their reasons. Figure 4.3 provides a synthesis of the mentors, tutors, and students’ perspectives. This figure maps both the forms of knowledge and the ways in which such forms relate to each other, according to the actors’ accounts. Each arrow represents one or more connecting activities, as show in the legend, while the direction of the arrows is also an important part of our findings. In the legend we also indicate who the agent is for each relationship. We resort to Vygotsky’s (1987) notion of a ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) to denote that the student performs certain activities when guided by a more knowledgeable person, i.e., the tutor, the mentor, or a more experienced colleague (see Sect. 4.2).

4.6 Results of the Second Study

4.6

79

Results of the Second Study

In this section, we address the research question of our second study (Orozco et al., 2019), by describing the integrative learning process and the intended outcome, in terms of several dimensions. But before such descriptions, we include emergent evidence of two co-existing perspectives on integration, which enhances the comprehension of the overall results. All the findings corresponding to our second empirical study are summarised in Table 4.5.

4.6.1

Between-Integration and Within-Integration

The examination of the actors’ discourses and behaviours suggests that two distinctive views co-exist on what is to be integrated. While observing the integrative learning process, we distinguished (a) instances in which forms of knowledge responding to ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ appear separately, from (b) instances in which integration concerns concepts belonging to the same form of knowledge, the same discipline, or the same line of reasoning. We labelled the former category of instances as ‘between-integration’ and the latter as ‘within-integration’. The between-integration perspective emphasises a preferred learning environment in which students ‘acquire’ some form of knowledge (e.g., learning theory is regarded as a school matter). This view goes together with a conviction that mastery of one form of knowledge does not necessarily imply mastery of the other, and building a complete explanation requires that people engage the individual forms of knowledge deliberately. Noteworthy, in this perspective, there is no attempt to rank theory and practice according to a hierarchy. ‘Those insights are a combination of theory and practice: Someone who is strong in theory will understand faster [. . .] but perfect theoretical knowledge doesn’t mean that you can turn it into practice in the field when something must happen. You need a good combination of both.’ [Mentors’ FGD]

On the other hand, the within-integration perspective focuses on the explanatory power of what the students learn, regardless of the origin of such knowledge. For example, within-integration does not involve linking the ‘concept of temperature’ to Table 4.5 Overview of the results (Orozco et al., 2019) Co-existing perspectives: Between & Within Integration Integrative learning: The process Integrated knowledge: The outcome Dual learning: Insight: Description of the pedagogical approach Description of the intended result of the process Dimensions: Dimensions: • Intentionality • Purpose • Time of the prompt • Logic • Locus of learning • Locus of integrated knowledge

80

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

the ‘practice of temperature’ or linking the ‘concept of pressure’ to the ‘practice of pressure’; instead, within-integration consists of linking the concepts of temperature and pressure to each other, engaging what has been learnt in practice as well. Such connection, moreover, enables the student to make inferences (i.e., to explain what happens, and to predict what can and is likely to happen). These connections do not appear to emerge automatically. ‘To me, it’s when you can say that the instrument is mounted on top of the pipe because there’s a wet gas flowing inside and [. . .] because you want to measure the temperature of the wet gas when it leaves [the dryer]. And . . . the instrument is a thermocouple because for those particular process conditions another instrument [a PT100] wouldn’t suit. So, when you’re able to give such an explanation for why that specific instrument has been installed in that specific position, then you’ve coupled theory with practice.’ [Students’ FGD]

In distinguishing within-integration from between-integration, it becomes clear that ‘integration’ does not necessarily have to be conceived of as a bridge between various forms of knowledge. Indeed, ‘integration’ also involves inference and argumentation, i.e.: the construction of chains of reasoning regardless of whether the building blocks consist of theoretical principles or of empirical observations and experiences. Furthermore, between-integration and within-integration perspectives appear to be intertwined: The emphasis on the theory-practice distinction (put by the former perspective) does not minimise the relevance of inference (according to the latter perspective) as a means of understanding and learning. The quote presented above as an illustration of within-integration not only represents an example of theory-practice integration taking place, but also allows us to distinguish: (a) the agent of integration, (b) several objects of integration, and (c) the integrative inferences made -among many other inferences that may be expected, although they remain implicit-.

4.6.2

Integrative Learning as Process and as Outcome

The notion of ‘integrative learning’ appeared with two different meanings in the actors’ discourses. On the one hand, it was used to denote the learning process while, on the other hand, it referred to the result or the intended outcomes of this process. For this reason, it is useful to focus on the process-outcome distinction to acknowledge both their particularities and their dialogical relation. The process: ‘The students grow throughout that year, such as you expect them to do, in terms of knowledge, in taking initiatives, as person and as team member’. [Mentors’]

The outcome: ‘The students will have much better insight into what actually happens [. . .]. Better insight and, therefore, increased reaction speed in the event of problems in the longer term’. [Tutors’ FGD]

4.6 Results of the Second Study

81

The dialogical relationship: ‘Actually, I think that, after graduation, we’ll benefit more from the insights we’re acquiring than we will from the raw theory [. . .]. The logical couplings, the logical thinking: that’s what will remain, and that’s what we’re learning here’. [Students’ FGD]

These illustrations have been taken out of the context of the data collection, in which all discussions targeted the topic of ILTP. With the context in mind, the expression ‘grow [. . .] in terms of knowledge’ refers to the process of integration, while the term ‘insight’ refers to the outcome of integration.

4.6.2.1

The Process Description

The learning process was evoked in various ways, i.e., as professional and personal development, as a bare stepwise approach to contents, and as a mirror of a broader instructional strategy. The latter view pertains to the coordination between learning environments (e.g., the classroom and school labs, the simulated settings or miniplants, and the workplace). Indeed, one possible description of the integrative learning process is in terms of the pedagogical approach used in ‘dual-learning’ programmes. Briefly, the students engage in combined school-based and work-based learning in such a way that most of the curriculum content is learnt in the workplace. This arrangement stands in contrast to ‘learning here, applying there’ approaches. ‘I prefer to see those steps much more in parallel or disarranged than in a linear sequence [. . .]. In that way, you get a structured organisation of theory, simulated learning environment and practical application. And the closer you get those three to each other, the most efficient your instructional process is. [. . .] At times, the students come back to learn new theory so, in fact, there are steps that are repeated a number of times.’ [Tutors’ FGD]

At school, the classes are interactive, the students give presentations to each other, there are several lab activities (for chemistry, instrumentation, and mechanics), and computer-based chemical process simulations. Also, although the content organisation and sequencing employed at school appears quite loosely connected to the learning activities that take place in the workplace, there is no evidence that this loose connection at the instructional design level might result in superficial integration of contents at the student level. In the workplace, part of the learning is formalised, as students typically go through a series of training steps that resemble the onboarding trainee programmes for starting operators that are offered by many chemicals manufacturing companies. Concurrently, the learning occurs through everyday observation and (peripheral) participation in the tasks of the production teams. Furthermore, most of the learning appears to occur in the workplace, not at school. ‘You have to dedicate a lot of time to new people who’re just coming from school. It takes four to five years in our unit. [. . .] Others claim that it takes an operator eight years to master a complex process. But it depends on the person, on the quality of support they get and on whom they learn from.’ [Mentors’ FGD]

82

4.6.2.2

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

The Process Dimensions

In order to describe the learning process, be it in terms of the pedagogical approach, we distinguished three dimensions that synthesise the observed process features: intentionality, time of the prompt and locus of learning. These dimensions are presented in Table 4.6. First, regarding intentionality, we observe that integrative learning is primarily deliberate, since learning is highly formalised (also in the workplace), and because incidental opportunities to learn are difficult to identify. Second, regarding the time dimension, it is not possible to indicate (based on predominance in the data) the point in time that best features the stimulus of integrative learning. Third, regarding locus, the integrative learning appears to be a highly individual process, partly because socialisation into work teams is favoured over peer-to-peer learning. Table 4.6 The dimensions of integrative learning (Orozco et al., 2019) Axial dimension Intentionality Refers to learning being or not being the main purpose of activities.

Extremes Deliberate: Engaging in planned reasoning or other activity with the purpose of learning.

Incidental: Opportunities to learn are by-products of planned or unplanned situations. Time of the prompt Stimuli for learning may originate at different points in time.

Past: A stimulus in the past is linked to new experiences.

Current: A present stimulus triggers incidental noting of facts, ideas or learning opportunities.

Illustration ‘An operator shows you a process flow diagram [. . .], he grabs it and goes with you to the field: [. . .] they help you understand. And then you have to draw a new diagram on your own. And because you’ve drawn it yourself, you know much more: [. . .] then I could integrate the new theory much more easily’. [Students’ FGD] ‘I always tell my students: “Once such an upset occurs, make sure you understand what’s going on, or ask for an explanation afterwards”’. [tutors’ FGD] ‘We have a neutralisation unit, the simplest neutralisation that exists [. . .], but . . . it’s all in an organic medium and that makes the situation completely different. [. . .] and yet, it’s interesting that they’ve already learnt the theory, so they know [at least] that during the neutralisation, a salt is formed, and heat is generated’. [Mentors’ FGD] ‘At any time, something can happen that shifts your attention [. . .]. If two chemicals came into contact while they were not supposed to . . . operators know immediately what they have to do but . . . you want to know it too: How to react all of a sudden, depending on which compounds . . .’. [Students’ FGD] (continued)

4.6 Results of the Second Study

83

Table 4.6 (continued) Axial dimension

Extremes Future: Current learning is stimulated by an expectation or in view of an activity.

Locus of learning Where learning happens, whether shared goals are exploited

Individual: Each student learns on their own: There is no peer-topeer interaction. Collective: Peers learn together, pursuing the same or similar goals.

4.6.2.3

Illustration The tutor clarifies the different focus of forthcoming apprenticeship periods: “In the second period, you will go deeper into [. . .] instrumentation and process control”. [Obs2] ‘No, we don’t know what each one of us has learnt or experienced in our respective workplaces’. [students’ FGD] Negative evidence: Mentors prefer to have only one student per shift, to prevent them from forming a subgroup. More specifically, companies favour each student’s integration into the operators’ teams over students’ peer-to-peer collective learning. [Obs2, Obs3]

The Outcome Description

Profoundly integrated knowledge was usually articulated in terms of ‘insight’, either the integration is between or within different forms of knowing. As a label, the term ‘insight’ was used in different ways, e.g., in opposition to declarative knowledge and in opposition to meaningless knowledge. As a concept, integrated knowledge seemed to be conceived of as: a discovery, as the ability to give and request reasons, in terms of problem-solving skills, and with reference to the potential to continue learning. A first conception of integrated knowledge is that of a discovery. Here, a discovery refers to the realisation that one’s mental model matches the actual object (e.g., parts of a piece of equipment fit within a mental representation of its working principle). ‘I think that you’ve made the link when you’re facing the machine and then you see it as in a picture . . . okay, that’s it!’ [Students’ FGD]

The ability to give and request reasons is by far the most prevalent conceptualisation of integrated knowledge. Most actors coincided in their descriptions of the intended output as the ability to state the underlying reasons for observations. There was less agreement, however, concerning (a) the extent to which it is appropriate to continue searching for reasons, and (b) the importance attached to the decision or the action that is ultimately taken as a result of reasoning. In addition, the actors acknowledge that a comprehensive explanation of a manufacturing process (or a section thereof) extends beyond the working principle of an instrument or piece of equipment, and include practical considerations related to the particular industrial unit (e.g.,

84

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

selection criteria, and considerations about location and mounting). Many more examples can be mentioned, and quotes presented concerning students giving reasons and asking for reasons; such instances include: explaining how something works in relation to its constituent parts, substantiating the categorisation of apparently isolated items under the umbrella of a single concept, and disentangling a network of concepts. On the other hand, the actors’ conceptualisation of integrated knowledge occasionally extended beyond reasoning alone to include action as well, albeit within a simulated learning environment. In this latter case, ‘insight’ is conceived as the understanding of what one is doing while solving a problem. ‘They need to know more than what it is and what it is used for. They also need to know what to do when something happens, how they have to react, on what it has an effect, and what can be the cause. [. . .] But you can’t expect such a mastery level from our students [. . .]: mastery lies in the far future.’ [Tutors’ FGD]

Furthermore, what the actors considered to be a comprehensive explanation was not uniform. Students and tutors primarily referred to issues of ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’, while mentors often added ‘what if’ considerations, to account for the use of integrated knowledge in problem-solving. In other words, the mentors’ description of integrated knowledge goes further than the capabilities of the students and novice operators, thus actually referring to advanced or even expert operators. Eventually, some actors considered a description of integrated knowledge in terms of reasoning alone as an idealistic goal, because operators are ‘simply’ expected to solve problems in order to maintain or regain the steady operation of the chemical process. ‘A shortcut may not be the best thing. But the shortcut that you take is actually someone else’s experience: if X happens, then you do Y. And maybe there’s less of an insight at that time, but they [operators] know what they have to do.’ [Tutors’ FGD]

Finally, the potential to continue learning was also seen as a part of the outcome of integrative learning. ‘We [the tutors] offer that bit more to the students, aware that their knowledge will flatten out over time and hoping that part of it remains. That is . . . hoping that they never become one of those operators who [. . .] don’t ask themselves any more questions.’ [Tutors’ FGD] ‘The why-question doesn’t come up automatically: it’s part of the learning process. We need to teach them to always pose those questions and eventually they’ll come up with such questions themselves. We teach them to do so during the evaluations, and more and more they will reflect in advance: “why is it so?”’ [Tutors’ FGD]

4.6.2.4

The Outcome Dimensions

The pursued integrated knowledge can be further described in terms of three dimensions that synthesise the observed process features: purpose, logic of integrated knowledge and locus of integration. This is shown in Table 4.7. First, regarding the purpose, the results indicate that integrated knowledge is driven primarily by functionality, whereas mastery appears as an intermediate purpose that is geared to performance. Second, regarding the kind of logic involved,

4.6 Results of the Second Study

85

Table 4.7 The dimensions of integrated knowledge (Orozco et al., 2019) Axial dimension Purpose Refers to the merit or value of the process: The ‘why’ or ‘what for’.

Extremes Mastery: Knowledge or skill in its own right.

Functionality: Knowledge being useful to attain other goals (often related to finding solutions to problems).

Logic The way of reasoning.

Truth-seeking: Logical reasoning, including explanations for the best hypothesis.

Performance-seeking: Reasoning that pursues a satisfactory result.

Locus of knowledge Perceived or imagined location of knowledge.

Internal: Forms or pieces of knowledge concentrated within an individual.

Illustration ‘When I explain something to someone with so much experience and they say, “yes, you’ve got it” [. . .], I am convinced that I know it’. [students’ FGD] ‘If you encounter the same or a similar problem, you can say ‘we solved it that way at that time’. That’s something that you can use again. That’s a asset students still lack, but someone who has been working in production for several years will certainly cultivate it’. [mentors’ FGD] P1: The anti-foam is added to the product upstream in the crystallisation step. P2: It can be reasonably expected that the anti-foam represents a nuisance during and/or after crystallisation. C: Therefore, the anti-foam is probably much more volatile than the product, such that it can escape before the crystallisation begins. [Obs4, adapted] P1: We need the full flow through this pipe. [P2: The pipe seems to be partially clogged.] P3: If we cause a water hammer, then the clog will crumble and the flow will be restored. C: Therefore, let’s cause a water hammer. [students’ FGD, adapted] ‘To me, it’s when you can say that the instrument is mounted on top of the pipe because there’s a wet gas flowing inside and [. . .]. So, when you’re able to give such an explanation for why that specific instrument has been installed in that specific position, then you’ve coupled theory with practice’. [students’ FGD] (continued)

86

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Table 4.7 (continued) Axial dimension

Extremes External: Knowledge shared amongst individuals (who become mutually dependent).

Illustration ‘For problem-solving . . . most operators don’t know the theory, but they have books there . . . full of troubleshooting: “When I get this problem, I have to do that”, and if you understand why there is problem, then you can think further than the book. It’s convenient to have some background knowledge, but . . . you can do without it, because it’s all been worked out by engineers’. [students’ FGD]

integrated knowledge seems to respond to both truth-seeking and performanceseeking logics, thus oscillating between them. Third, regarding locus, while integrated knowledge aspires to internal integration (as far as the school is concerned), it tends to rapidly become external under the influence of the division of labour, thus resulting in distributed knowledge.

4.7 4.7.1

Discussion Focus on the Actors’ Personal Epistemologies

The first investigation presented in this chapter (Orozco et al., 2020) sought to uncover the various views people hold on theoretical and practical knowledge (Research Question 1), and their views on how these forms of knowing relate to each other (Research Question 2). Our focus has been on the personal epistemologies and assumptions of the key actors in dual T-VET; and this, we argue, is a necessary first step towards a correct interpretation of these actors’ discourses and behaviour. While much philosophical work has been done on the conceptual exploration of vocational knowledge (e.g., Winch, 2010), our work does not aim to be an empirical validation of such existing philosophical knowledge. Rather than to advance a definition of professional or vocational knowledge, our first empirical investigation is motivated by our interest in understanding key actors in T-VET through their own perspectives. Concerning the first research question, and based on the negotiated accounts of all actors taken together, our findings indicate that there is more than just ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. We identified eight forms of knowledge that students and professionals seem to integrate (to some extent, and in certain conditions). Among these forms of knowledge, five were identified as ‘theoretical’ in Table 4.2 (i.e., pure, applied,

4.7 Discussion

87

situated, self-constructed and implicit), and the other three forms identified as ‘practical’ in Table 4.3 (i.e., observational, functional, and cunning). The actors’ classification and labelling of pieces of knowledge into the two broader categories and their sub-categories, responded to certain criteria that appear to stem from personal and negotiated beliefs (Orozco et al., 2020) about: (a) ways in which particular forms of knowledge are related to the features of particular learning environments (e.g., theory-formality or practice-informality); (b) the timing and purpose of learning; and (c) the perceived applicability of knowledge. These criteria are aligned with existing knowledge on the structural and functional aspects of epistemological beliefs (de Brabander & Rozendaal, 2007; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012), while they further include concerns about the micro-genesis of knowledge. The forms acknowledged by each group of actors (albeit with certain idiosyncratic differences) were presented in an aggregated fashion (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). However, a piece of knowledge is not always categorised in absolute terms, but in relation to a second piece of knowledge (whether this comparison is deliberate or not). Overall, we learnt that “what counts as theory and as practice is not only individual but, furthermore, relative to the point of comparison and highly unstable” (Orozco et al., 2020, p.16). This particular finding suggests that the actors hold sophisticated epistemologies (in varying ways and to varying extents) rather than dualistic or naïve ones. Our interpretation is consistent with the ontologicalepistemological position that theory and practice are not intrinsically different (but only different at an analytical level). The latter conclusion does not entitle us to overlook the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. Although our findings reveal that theory and practice somehow represent a unity, and suggest how reasoning in theoretical and in practical ways are closely connected to one another, this does not imply that theory and practice directly corresponding to each other (i.e., that they are equivalent forms of knowledge). Such non-equivalence can be understood in Vygotsky’s (1987) terms: a ‘unity of process’ does not imply a ‘unity of identity’. Although our empirical findings are not fine grained enough to show differences in the internal structure of forms of knowledge (Young, 2003a) or in their logical structure (Beckett, 2000), they do point to differences in learning outcomes that result from specific activities in which students and professionals engage, in line with the non-dualistic distinction of theory and practice (see Sect. 2.1.2). Therefore, we subscribe to the position that “we do not have to abandon this distinction because it does not reflect a dualism”’ (Guile, 2006, p. 256), and that abandoning it is likely to result in downplaying the theoretical component of professional knowledge, with negative consequences for the students’ further perspectives (Guile, 2006). Despite the limitations to provide detailed evidence on the specificities of theory and practice, we contend that the categories of sub-forms of theoretical and practical knowledge advanced in this chapter are legitimate. This categorisation, as explained before, results from a systematic analysis according to the constant comparison method, and originates from the intersubjective views of the very actors. With these new sub-forms of theory and practice, we can start to see the multiple

88

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

connections that, eventually, will reveal a possible expression of the overall ‘integration of theory and practice’. The second research question concerns the relationships between forms of theoretical and practical knowledge. The unified actors’ map (Fig. 4.3) addresses this question by depicting the activities that relate forms of knowledge. Rather than a single connection between two objects, the integration of theory and practice appears as a complex network of activities connecting multiple sub-forms of knowledge or, more correctly, multiple uses of knowledge (Orozco et al., 2020). Among the eleven relationships we identified (see Table 4.4. in Sect. 4.5.2), ‘explaining’ appears as a frequently recurring connecting activity for various instances of theory and practice. Furthermore, the reasoning involved in these explanations appears as a predominantly social activity. All the proposed relationships between the forms of knowledge refer to activities that are typically performed by multiple agents. Certainly, students seldom relate those forms independently or in isolation; rather, the connections often seem to be feasible only with the mediating guidance of a more knowledgeable person. We resorted to Vygotsky’s (1987) concept of a ‘zone of proximal development’ to account for this mediation. It also follows that the theory-practice integration is inescapably collaborative, as the pieces of knowledge are distributed amongst the various agents. Noteworthy, a few connections appear to be out of reach for the students, and even so for more experienced professionals; certain connecting activities are necessarily performed by others who have privileged access to particular forms of knowledge. This finding raises questions about the notion of agency (Billett, 2002, 2009), which possible overemphasises the power of individuals’ engagement to learn (in an integrated manner) from workplace experiences. Instead, the intentional and purposive participation for learning could be more determined by the affordances of the workplace than initially expected. Beyond the responses to the research questions, some other important emergent findings can be discussed. For example, we noticed that experienced operators and mentors are not quite critical of work instructions and procedures, or they are not expected to be so, and that these actors tend to disengage from basic theory. If extrapolated to the students (i.e., operators-to-be), such perception of how to embody the process operator’s profession can hamper the ILTP in T-VET. The results of this first empirical investigation can also be seen in relation to existing knowledge. Several authors, to whom we referred in previous sections, have made theoretical contributions on the distinction between forms or kinds of knowledge (e.g., Bernstein, 1999; Winch, 2013; Young, 2003b), albeit from different perspectives. Whereas Bernstein takes a predominantly sociological view on the topic, our work particularly resonates with Young’s work (discussing Durkheim and Vygotsky’s ideas) and with Winch’s work (following Brandom’s ideas). These scholars are not only concerned with the interrelationship between forms or kinds of knowledge, but they share the common purpose to emphasise the importance of epistemology for curriculum design. This aligns to the claim that epistemological considerations have important pedagogical implications.

4.7 Discussion

4.7.2

89

Focus on the Conceptualisation of the ILTP in Terms of Its Process and Outcome Aspects

The purpose of the second empirical study (Orozco et al., 2019) was to advance a conceptualisation of the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) in technical vocational education and training (T-VET), by taking a grounded theory approach. We focused on two related aspects of the ILTP (i.e., the process of learning and the expected outcomes of the learning process) and presented conceptual descriptions for both, based on their most predominant features. Those features were ordered into six dimensions that could be conceived as continua (with one exception) characterised by their two observed extremes. This kind of description makes it possible to position the learning process and the integrated learning outcome along the proposed dimensions. We characterised ‘integrative learning’ not only as a stepwise approach to contents or as a reflection of an instructional strategy but, moreover, as a process of professional and personal development. In terms of its three dimensions (intentionality, time, and locus of learning), we suggested that, in the context of our study, (1) integrative learning is primarily deliberate, (2) no past, present, or future stimuli can be considered predominant and (3) integrative learning is a highly individual process. The process dimensions were presented in Table 4.6. The first two process dimensions are partially consistent with prior knowledge of non-formal learning (Eraut, 2000). Furthermore, we suggest that past prompts are mentioned more frequently because people are more aware of them, such that they are more easily identified and articulated. Finally, we propose that the primarily individual character of the learning process is explained in part by a preference for socialising students into work teams over peer-to-peer learning. We observed that ‘integrated knowledge’ is often conceived of as an insight (as opposed to isolated forms of knowledge) and is qualified as meaningful, adaptively transferable, and self-sustainable. Consistently, we found that integrated knowledge comprises not only suddenly discovered connections, but also an ability to engage in reasoning with others, problem-solving skills and even the potential to continue learning. Regarding its three dimensions (purpose, logic and locus of knowledge), we argued that, in the context of our study, integrated knowledge (1) is driven more by functionality and performance goals than it is by mastery alone, (2) responds to both truth-seeking and performance-seeking logic and (3) tends to move from internally to externally integrated forms. The outcome dimensions were presented in Table 4.7. While integrated knowledge can be mainly characterised by its functionality purpose according to its first dimension, its position along the second dimension is less straightforward. Indeed, reasoning appears to oscillate between two logics in a yet undefined manner. Additionally, the evidence suggests that the logic and purpose dimensions are related to each other. We found that students and their instructors employ a ‘truth-seeking’ logic when the purpose of knowing lies in promoting and demonstrating mastery, while they tend to employ a performance-seeking logic when the purpose of knowing is functional. The logic

90

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

dimension is supported by existing knowledge on the ‘epistemology of practice’ (Beckett, 2000). Finally, the locus of integrated knowledge appears to be particularly dynamic, moving from internally integrated to externally integrated. This is a remarkable finding, as it implies that the student’s centrality as the agent of integration does not persist over time. The more students are immersed in a working environment with a strong division of labour, the more other agents come into play. This phenomenon results in knowledge that is as much integrated as it is distributed across multiple groups of people. This raises a question of whether integrated knowledge (at the work group level) disintegrates over time (at the individual level). If it does disintegrate, it will not be into its original pieces. We further contend that there is a dialogical relationship between process and outcome. More specifically, process features inform the outcome, while outcome features induce the process. For example, by pairing the various dimensions (as in Table 4.5), we can speculate that the purpose shapes the extent of intentionality, or even that the different timed prompts predominantly drive one or the other kind of logic. Regarding the distinctive locus of learning and of knowing, there is still more to investigate in order to explain the apparent incongruity of individual learning that leads to external knowledge (i.e., the emergence of mutual dependency). Further analysis could reveal additional cross-relationships amongst the six dimensions. Finally, we propose that claims about the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the integration of theory and practice are informed by the epistemological position of the claimer. Our findings can therefore be understood only in consideration of co-existing perspectives on integration, that respond to distinctive degrees of dichotomous thinking about theory and practice. Whereas the between-integration perspective emphasises the separation of theory and practice and the need to bridge them, the within-integration perspective focuses primarily on the use of concepts (learnt in any environment) to build explanations that involve both theoretical and practical considerations. The former is in line with existing knowledge about integrative pedagogies (Tynjälä, 2008), while the latter is consistent with existing knowledge about Inferentialism (Brandom, 1995, 2000; Guile, 2010). In addition to distinguishing between-integration from within-integration, we have highlighted the intertwined nature of these perspectives. The emphasis on the theory-practice distinction does not rest importance to argumentation as a means to understanding and learning. This is consistent with the stance that the distinction between forms of knowledge does not reflect a dualism (Guile 2006), rather it guards against the risk of ‘glossing over’ the theoretical component of vocational knowledge. Echoing Guile (2006), we advocate that the tendency to lose focus on theory has detrimental consequences: (a) students may not readily grasp the relationship between theoretical and practical forms of knowledge, as they do not understand the different internal structuring, contents and purposes of these forms of knowledge; and (b) students may not readily identify the contribution of each form of knowledge to workplace practice, thus continuing to conceive of theory and practice as belonging to non-reconcilable worlds.

4.8 Conclusion and Implications

91

Having reviewed the main findings and their plausible interpretations, we acknowledge a limitation in the extent of generalisability of our conclusions beyond the context of this study. We suggest that our conclusions are tenable in any context in which professionals can be considered knowledge workers, and in which a constructive tension prevails. In other words, we argue that our conceptualisations of process and output are valid in contexts in which there is no consensus on the question about how far one should go in reasoning, in which the ‘need-to-know versus nice-to-know debate’ remains open and in which the within-integration and between-integration perspectives co-exist. We acknowledge that contextual differences can be expected at the level of pedagogical approaches in the workplace and, therefore, we suggest that there is an opportunity for continuing research in different fields and organisational cultures to shed more light on the issue of generalisability.

4.8

Conclusion and Implications

In this chapter, our argument has been that, if we are to disentangle further the theory-practice integration in any particular domain, the first step is to grasp how key actors in such a context conceive of theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge and, most importantly, the relationship between these forms of knowing. Accordingly, our study sought to generate a new lens (based on qualitative empirical data) through which to interpret (inter-)subjective perspectives on forms of knowledge and the relationships between them. We advanced a map that depicts: (a) several forms of knowledge that respond to conceptions of theory or conceptions of practice; (b) the relationships between these forms of knowledge in terms of activities; and (c) the multiple agents in charge of accomplishing each connecting activity. Without this model, we may overlook differences in conceptions and attempt to understand others through our own conceptions or received ideas. First, the actors’ epistemological beliefs became visible through the criteria they employed to categorise pieces of knowledge. In general, people do not hold marked dichotomous views on knowledge, i.e., their conceptions appear to be more sophisticated than naïve (in certain aspects and to certain extents). Second, each connecting activity between forms of knowledge seems to have a unique purpose (e.g., validation) that another activity is not able to fulfil. One of these relationships, ‘explanation’, stands out for its strong prevalence. Due to its notably social aspect and its potential to connect distinctive normative domains to each other, it seems appropriate to further interpret such social activity of explaining in inferentialist terms, i.e., as ‘social reasoning’ (Brandom, 1994, 1995). Third, the activities that relate forms of knowledge are often carried out by multiple agents, i.e., the students often draw upon the guidance of more knowledgeable others rather than building relationships alone. This finding, which resonates to Vygotsky’s (1987) concept of a ‘zone of proximal development’, adds arguments for maintaining a focus on explanation (as social reasoning) as a crucial relationship between forms of knowledge. Moreover, we found that some relating activities are performed by ‘external’ agents (i.e., people

92

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

other than the key actors) who have preferential access to particular forms of knowledge. This implies the need to question the expected centrality of the student in the process of relating forms of knowledge. Therefore, if we wish to facilitate the integrative process, rather than overemphasising the engagement of individuals, we need to consider the affordances of the workplace as well. In sum, the first study presented in this chapter (Orozco et al., 2020) reveals the complexity of knowledge networks that the tacit conceptions of individuals often conceal, as well as a multiplicity of actors who embody the integrative activities. We contend that this study is particularly useful for continuing research on the overall theory-practice integration, as it offers a rationale for a conceptualisation of integration as a network, as well as underpinning for the selection of an inferentialist framework. Finally, our further study (Orozco et al., 2019) has coined a definition of the ITLP construct that, we contend, contributes to clarifying the concept of integrative learning. This conceptualisation, which advances descriptive dimensions for both the integrative learning process and integrated knowledge as the outcome, also reveals the between-integration and within-integration as co-existing perspectives. For practitioners at schools and in workplaces, this study contributes to raising awareness of perspectives on integration, and to new knowledge on what is at stake in the analysis of the process and outcome of integrative learning (i.e., their specific features and dimensions). This knowledge forms a basis for reflection that invites practitioners to consider (or reconsider) which position along each process and outcome dimension they choose to aim for. With this empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP, we have raised new questions and generated hypotheses which constitute tools for continuing research on integration and expertise development.

4.9 4.9.1

End Notes Extracts from Instruments of Data Collection

The following extracts are translations from the original instruments. The entire data collection was performed in Dutch. Some topics and questions were offered to all actors to allow for comparison. For example: vignettes followed by discussions to explore epistemological beliefs. • Exploring perceptions of relevance of the central question of the study: Is it important to integrate theory and practice? • Exploring perceptions of the role of theory in understanding, reasoning and (possibly) acting. Seeking for backing for those perceptions using a classic example: Do you think it is important to learn McCabe-Thiele’s theory about distillation?

4.9 End Notes

93

In what is it important? When/How does it reveal useful? • Exploring the role of and copying with ‘inconsistences’ and ‘special cases’ (as potential triggers or as potential mediators of integrative learning): Detecting an ‘inconsistency’ or an extension/branching during the apprenticeship, with respect to what’s been learnt at school. How detected? By whom? Reactions? How resolved? • Exploring perception about the role of the learning environment: In what ways could they learn this specific job by attending school only, thus without the workplace? What would happen if learning at school did not exist, and thus they had to learn at the workplace only? Other topics were selected for one group of actors in particular, in accordance with their specific roles, concerns, profiles and expertise, for instance: • Mentors ! Perceptions on the relevance of theory in various typical situations. Indicators of mastery as observed in behaviour. • Tutors ! Actual and ideal approach to curriculum organisation and instruction. The role of various tasks (intended and observed) in integrative learning, e.g.: explanations in various forms and situations, simulations in laboratories or computer simulations, project-based tasks, problem-based tasks. • Students ! Perceptions on the relevance and learning potential of various strategies and tasks. During all focus groups and interviews the participants were asked each time again to provide reasons (albeit indirectly asked!) to support their claims or an example to illustrates their claims. For some participants it became an automatism to give reasons and/or examples, while others had to be prompted. Although much reasoning contain fallacies, having to justify their claims resulted in rich and specific evidence and, moreover, prevented participants from making (often superficial and empty) generalisations.

4.9.2

Focus Group Schedules – The Mentors

4.9.2.1

Session 1: Explore

Vignette ! Exploring the subjects’ epistemological beliefs about theory and practice Instruction: Read this statement and comment.

94

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

“Theory is when you know everything, but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but nobody knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works, and no one knows why!” Vignette ! Exploring the subjects’ epistemological beliefs about theory and practice Instruction: Read the following statements, choose one and comment. • • • • • •

You can integrate theory into practice but not the other way around. Theories are obvious. Practice serves to validate theories. Theoretical knowledge comes first. Practice has an influence on how we instruct and learn. Theory and practice are two sides of the same coin.

Questions ! Exploring perceptions of the goal of learning and indicators of progress • What should these students ideally achieve in their programme? How would you describe the ideal goal? • What are intermediate steps to that goal? What are the features of those intermediate steps? Questions ! Exploring perceptions of relevance of the central question of the study • Is it important to integrate theory and practice? Questions ! Exploring for the need to refocus the central question of the study (other objects of integration) • Beyond theory and practice, is there anything else students integrate (or should integrate)? • E.g., Do you think that the students reason in terms of disciplines (thus limiting the availability of concepts required in a particular situation)?

4.9.2.2

Task Between Sessions 1–2

Role play ! Identification of aspects (theoretical, practical, theory and practice undistinguishable) within specific cases (operations or techniques) in a simulated situation of ‘giving and asking for reasons’. Instruction: Propose a topic you would like to explain briefly during session 2 (pretending the explanation is given to a student). Selected topics (by the mentors): (1) heat pump, (2) feed-forward controller, (3) liquid-liquid extraction.

4.9 End Notes

4.9.2.3

95

Session 2: In-Depth Recount

Role play: One mentor would explain, the researcher would play the role of the student (interrupting the explanation with questions and correct/incorrect partial conclusions), and the other participants would observe. The observers completed an observation schedule where they identified (a) the subtopic being explained by using a keyword and (b) theoretical, practical, and mixed aspects contained in the keyword. Discussion about the role play and brief comparison of the completed observation schedules. Question ! Exploring the role of and copying with ‘inconsistences’ and ‘special cases’ (as potential triggers or as potential mediators of integrative learning) • Detecting an ‘inconsistency’ or an extension/branching during the apprenticeship, with respect to what’s been learnt at school. • How detected? By whom? / Reactions? • How to resolve? Questions ! Looking for features of (integrative) learning Imagine the CPT students wouldn’t go to school, and they had to learn at the workplace only: • Would they learn in a different way? • Would they learn different things? • Would your task as mentor be different? Questions ! Looking for features of (integrative) learning. Contra-intuitive questioning. • In what ways could they learn this specific job by attending school only, thus without the workplace? • What would happen if learning at school did not exist, and thus they had to learn at the workplace only? Questions ! Looking for indicators of mastery as observed in behaviour (e.g., due to presence/absence of concepts or due to right/wrong linking of concepts) • How do you realise that a student doesn’t understand? • Can you identify the reason why they don’t understand?

4.9.2.4

Task Between Sessions 2–3

Matrix ! Explore whether various forms of knowledge are acknowledged and can be distinguished for several very specific cases. Matrix ! Explore perceptions on the relevance of theory in various typical situations.

96

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Matrix ! Explore for behavioural indicators of the extent to which knowledge integrates its various aspects. Matrix ! Explore for behavioural indicators of various levels of expertise. Instruction: Complete the template matrix provided with two examples of your choice denoting an operation or a technique present in your manufacturing unit (e.g., one operation or technique that is particularly relevant in your process, or one most students find particularly difficult to grasp). For each example: • Identify these aspects: theoretical, practical, theory and practice undistinguishable • To what extent do you need to put into use each identified theoretical aspect in the role of process operator? (4-point scale provided) – – – –

For everyday follow up and control of the process. To solve an urgent, unexpected process upset. To solve (or propose a solution to) a recurrent problem in the process. In order to propose a fundamental modification to the process.

• For each operation/technique (all aspects) indicate on what bases you judge that: – That the student masters this operation/technique to some extent. – That the student still majorly fails to master this operation/technique. • For each operation/technique (all aspects) indicate on what bases you compare the mastery level of: – A student in this particular programme or any other operator trainee. – A ‘novice’ operator (employees with less than 5–7 years experience, approx.). – An experienced operator (employees with 7 or more years experience). 4.9.2.5

Session 3: Elaborate

Discussion about the Matrix task Questions ! Looking for elaboration and (additional) supporting evidence • (Repeated from session 1) What should these students ideally achieve in their programme? • (Repeated from session 1) What are intermediate steps to that goal? What are the features of those intermediate steps? • What means do students count on (or have at their disposition) to progress? • What contributes to that progress? Questions ! Looking for finer-grained elaboration and insight from different actors’ perspective • Do you think it is important to learn McCabe-Thiele’s theory about distillation? In what is it important? When/How does it reveal useful?

4.9 End Notes

4.9.3

Focus Group Schedules – The Tutors

4.9.3.1

Session 1: Explore

97

Vignette ! Exploring the subjects’ epistemological beliefs about theory and practice Instruction: Read the following statements, choose one and comment. • • • • • •

You can integrate theory into practice but not the other way around. Theories are obvious. Practice serves to validate theories. Theoretical knowledge comes first. Practice has an influence on how we instruct and learn. Theory and practice are two sides of the same coin. Several questions are the same as posed to the mentors. Questions ! Exploring the features of ILTP if seen as a learning goal

• Could we think of the integration of theory and practice as a goal of this learning programme? • Can you describe that goal? What does it consist of? Vignette ! Exploring the approach to curriculum/instruction organisation (use of focal-distal attention technique to avoid direct cueing) Instruction: Take this schematic description of a curriculum organisation, taken from another dual learning programme than CPT, and comment. Four-steps linear sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Theoretical knowledge at school. Simulated workplace in a training centrum. Testing against practice and observation phase in a company. Integrated experiential period of X weeks.

4.9.3.2

Task Between Sessions 1–2

Apprenticeship tasks ! Understand the role of tasks as mediator of integration Apprenticeship tasks ! Insight into a task-centred approach as mediator of integration (in opposition to or in combination with a dialogue-centred approach) Instruction: Select a topic for which you would like to analyse associated tasks (that are given to the students to be performed during their apprenticeships). Selected topics (by the mentors): (1) temperature measuring instruments, (2) rupture discs, and (3) azeotrope distillation.

98

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

4.9.3.3

Session 2: In-Depth Recount

Questions ! Exploring for the need to refocus the central question of the study (other objects of integration) • Beyond theory and practice, is there anything else students integrate (or should integrate)? • E.g., Is there any need to deliberately focus on integrating various disciplines? • E.g., Is it advisable that students approach learning in the same way at school and at the workplace? For instance, using (or attempting to use) the same learning strategies (irrespective of their learning styles). Analysis of each selected apprenticeship task: • Description of the task and its (often implicit) purpose • Identification of theoretical, practical, and mixed aspects contained in the task. • Question: In what way does this specific task assist integrative learning? General discussion about the apprenticeship tasks: • their stand-alone functions, • their function in combination with other mediators, • and their unintended side-effects.

4.9.3.4

Task Between Sessions 2–3

Storytelling task: ILTP as process ! outlining and illustrating the mechanism Note: ‘ILTP’ is the process of ‘acquiring insight’ or ‘insight acquisition’, in the tutors’ terms Instruction: In view of our next session select two particular cases you can bring or have in mind to respond to questions and discuss. First case: A particular student • Storytelling: How did the student progress from having basic knowledge to deeper insight? • How ¼ Which steps are taken, which means are employed, which/whose support is engaged? Second case: A particular technical process (or a part of it) • Storytelling: How does ‘the average student’ progressively gain insight into the technical process? • How ¼ Which steps are taken, which means are employed, which/whose support is engaged?

4.9 End Notes

4.9.3.5

99

Session 3: Elaborate

Question ! The working of apprenticeship tasks as mediators of integration Focus on specific examples: ‘pump cavitation’ and ‘mass balance’ • What is the purpose of this task? • In what level of detail is the student expected to accomplish the task? • What does it take to perform such task? Question ! Exploring the role of and copying with ‘inconsistences’ and ‘special cases’ (as potential triggers or as potential mediators of integrative learning) • Detecting an ‘inconsistency’ or an extension/branching during the apprenticeship, with respect to what’s been learnt at school. • How detected? By whom? • Reactions? • How resolved? Questions ! Insight into the instructional design • What is the rationale for the division of the apprenticeship blocks/periods? (i.e., currently three five-week blocks)? Pedagogic, practical, normative considerations? • If you were free to organise the apprenticeship (differently) for the student to get the most out of it, how would you do that? What would you consider? • Use of an ‘apprenticeship vade mecum’: description of general purposes and expectations, description of learning objectives, lists of tasks by block/period Discussion about the storytelling task. • How did you choose the case? • Description and analysis of the case. Further elaboration: • Focus on evaluation for and of learning, e.g., presentations, field tours, attitudes, exams • About incidental learning and self-directedness, e.g., assistance for planning and in detecting opportunities to learn Questions ! Perceptions of the role and relevance of theory and theoretical thinking • Guidance on career choice: If a potential new student would doubt about attending the CPT programme at post-secondary level or enrolling in higher education (e.g., in an engineering bachelor course), what would you recommend? • What does an operator need theories for? Questions ! Looking for finer-grained elaboration and insight from different actors’ perspective

100

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Do you think it is important to learn McCabe-Thiele’s theory about distillation? In what is it important? When/How does it reveal useful? Note: Some of the topics and questions presented to the tutors are only applicable to participants tutoring at schools at post-secondary level

4.9.4

Focus Group Schedule – The Students

Questions ! Understanding the context • Why did you choose this course? • What do you expect from this course? Vignette ! Exploring the subjects’ epistemological beliefs about theory and practice Instruction: Read the following statements, choose one and comment. • • • • • •

You can integrate theory into practice but not the other way around. Theories are obvious. Practice serves to validate theories. Theoretical knowledge comes first. Practice has an influence on how we instruct and learn. Theory and practice are two sides of the same coin. Questions ! Exploring perception about the role of the learning environment:

• In what ways could they learn this specific job by attending school only, thus without the workplace? • What would happen if learning at school did not exist, and thus they had to learn at the workplace only? Question ! Learning theory ‘through’ practice • In your course description you can read that dual learning entails ‘learning theory through practice’. What does this mean? • Give examples. Questions ! Exploring for the need to refocus the central question of the study (other objects of integration) • Beyond theory and practice, is there anything else students integrate (or should integrate)? • Do you find sometimes yourself thinking in terms of disciplines? When (not)? • Do you approach learning at school and at the workplace in the same way or differently? Do you have a preferred way of learning? Explain. Do you need to switch approaches/strategies? When (not)? Do you manage to switch smoothly, or do you attempt to use the same strategies everywhere?

4.9 End Notes

101

Questions ! Looking for finer-grained elaboration and insight from different actors’ perspective Do you think it is important to learn McCabe-Thiele’s theory about distillation? In what is it important? When/How does it reveal useful? Question ! Exploring the role of and copying with ‘inconsistences’ and ‘special cases’ (as potential triggers or as potential mediators of integrative learning) • Detecting an ‘inconsistency’ or an extension/branching during the apprenticeship, with respect to what’s been learnt at school. • How detected? By whom? • Reactions? • How resolved? Questions ! Searching critical events to explore ILTP as process in more depth Note: ‘to couple’ theory and practice is the term used by most of the participants to denote ‘integration’ • • • •

What is the most interesting you have learnt so far? Explain. Is there a theoretical and a practical aspect in there? Can you distinguish them? How are those aspects ‘coupled’ to each other? How do you ‘couple’ them?

What means do you have to do this? Cues (if necessary): others helping you, things you choose to do, things you are asked to do (e.g., tasks) Questions ! Exploring ILTP as goal: self-evaluation • You use a list of learning objectives you’ve been given as a checklist to indicate which topics you’ve already ‘seen’. Now imagine you would use the checklist to indicate for each topic whether you’ve integrated its theoretical and practical aspects. – When would you check a box? – What would you consider in order to judge whether you’ve ‘coupled’ those aspects? – Provide an example. In general, when do you consider that you’ve ‘made the coupling’? Questions ! Exploring perceptions of relevance of the central question of the study Is it important to integrate theory and practice? Questions ! Perceptions of knowledge in use • Give an instance when you find yourself at school using something you’ve learnt at the workplace.

102

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

• Give an instance when you find yourself at school using something you’ve learnt at the workplace. • In general, how do you use what you’ve learnt so far in this course (irrespective from where you’ve learnt it)? – Where? In which situation? To do what? – Independently? With others’ help? With certain aids? Using as such (as learnt) or changing something or isolating one part of it?

4.9.5

Interview Schedule – The Tutors

Only two tutors were interviewed individually. A summary of the most relevant questions posed to the other tutors (in three-session focus groups discussions) was used as interview schedule.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Sage Publications, Inc. Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590–617. Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Huettel, L. G., & Linnenbrink-García, L. (2016). Developmental changes in college engineering students’ personal epistemology profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 1–8. Beckett, D. (2000). Making workplace learning explicit: An epistemology of practice for the whole person. Westminster Studies in Education, 23(1), 41–53. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. Billett, S. (2002). Toward a workplace Pedagogy: Guidance, Participation, and Engagement. Adult Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171302237202. Billett, S. (2008). Subjectivity, learning and work: Sources and legacies. Vocations and Learning, 1(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-008-9009-y Billett, S. (2009). Personal epistemologies, work and learning. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.001 Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard university press. Brandom, R. (1995). Knowledge and the social articulation of the space of reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55(4), 895–908. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Cedefop (2015). Vocational pedagogies and benefits for learners: Practices and challenges in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cedefop research paper; No 47.

References

103

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. R. B. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge. de Brabander, C. J., & Rozendaal, J. S. (2007). Epistemological beliefs, social status, and school preference: An exploration of relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 141–162. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136. Gessler, M., & Howe, F. (2015). From the reality of work to grounded work-based learning in German vocational education and training: Background, concept and tools. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 2(3 (Special Issue)), 214–238. Gillham, B. (2003). Case study research methods. Continuum. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine-Atherton. Guile, D. (2006). Learning across contexts. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 251–268. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy (Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Guile, D., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). Heinz, W. R., & Taylor, A. (2005). Learning andwork transition policies in a comparative perspective. In Nina Basica et al. (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 847–864). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Hiim, H. (2017). Ensuring curriculum relevance in vocational education and training: Epistemological perspectives in a curriculum research project. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 4(1), 1–19. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Routledge. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. Mortelmans, D. (2007). Handboek Kwalitatieve Onderzoeksmethode. [Manual of qualitative research methods]. Uitgeverij Acco. Mortelmans, D. (2011). Kwalitatieve Analyse met NVivo. [Qualitative analysis with NVivo]. Uitgeverij Acco. Orozco, M., Gijbels, D. & Timmerman, C. (2019). Empirical conceptualisation of integrative learning. A focus on theory-practice integration in technical vocational education and training. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09223-2. Orozco, M., Gijbels, D. & Timmerman, C. (2020). Conceiving the relationship between theory and practice in T-VET. An in-depth Study on Key Actors’ Epistemological Perspectives. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1715468. Parry, R. (2020). Episteme and Techne. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/episteme-techne/. Accessed on 31 July 2021. Raelin, J. A. (1997). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8, 563–578. Sappa, V., Choy, S., & Aprea, C. (2016). Stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting learning at different sites in two national VET systems. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 68, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2016.1201845 Segers, M., & Van den Haar, S. (2012). The experiential learning theory: D. Kolb and D. Boud. In F. Dochy, D. Gijbels, M. Segers, & P. Van den Bossche (Eds.), Theories of learning for the workplace: Building blocks for training and professional development programs (pp. 52–65). Routledge.

104

4 Empirical Conceptualisation of ILTP

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge: A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357–442. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.12.001 Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky. Vol. 1 of Problems of general psychology, including the volume thinking and speech. Springer. Winch, C. (2010). Dimensions of expertise: A conceptual exploration of vocational knowledge. Continuum International Publishing Group. Winch, C. (2013). Curriculum design and epistemic ascent. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(1), 128–146. Young, M. (2003a). Conceptualizing vocational knowledge: Some theoretical considerations. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 185–200). Routledge. Young, M. (2003b). Durkheim, Vygotsky and the curriculum of the future. London Review of Education, 1(2), 99–117. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2014). From the sociology of professions to the sociology of professional knowledge. In M. Young & J. Muller (Eds.), Knowledge, expertise and the professions (pp. 3–30). Routledge.

Chapter 5

The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

5.1

Introduction

In everyday educational practice, particularly in T-VET, theory and practice are often considered inherently different forms of knowledge requiring different pedagogical approaches (e.g., Derry, 2016); such view hampers the fruitful integration of theoretical and practical rationalities. As an overaction, educators and instructional designers resort to amalgamated forms of knowledge (e.g., work process knowledge), which ignore any distinction between theory and practice, and often result in promoting practice at the expense of theory (Guile, 2010). The problems posed by both extreme positions are explained in more detail in Chaps. 1 and 2. In educational practice and educational research, the relevance of integrated theoretical and practical knowledge is generally acknowledged and expected to result in more insightful learning. However, it is not obvious how theory and practice relate to each other (i.e., whether their relationship is an integration, a combination, a hybridisation, or something else) and how the course of such integration looks like. As explained in Sect. 1.3, although there are pedagogical models that propose activities and resources to facilitate integration (e.g., Tynjälä, 2008), they do not make their conceptualisation of ‘integration’ explicit, nor describe how such integration may develop over time (Barber, 2012). In other words, prior educational research has focused on what contributes to promoting integration, without proposing a description of integration as a concept and as a phenomenon. Such omission is problematic, because the lack of consistent accounts for integration processes often results in students’ unguided learning, so it remains unclear how they need to integrate different forms of knowledge into a coherent set of professional competences (Schaap et al., 2012). Indeed, without such conceptual knowledge about integration, the examination of the pedagogic strategies required to assist learners to ‘mediate’ between theory and practice, are left in an underdeveloped state, thus arresting a number of shifts that are considered beneficial for © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7_5

105

106

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

vocational pedagogy (Guile, 2006). For example, perpetuating the conception of practice-based learning as requiring a different pedagogy from theoretical learning, while preventing us from understanding that “all forms of learning presuppose the social practice of reasoning” (Guile, 2006, p. 267). From the preceding paragraphs, it follows that we need to generate new understanding and theoretical underpinning to make the continuing advancement of integrative pedagogies in T-VET possible. Therefore, we raised the following question, which is central to our study: How can the process of integrative learning of theory and practice be understood? To address this question, we set out an empirical investigation that provides a plausible description of the integrative learning process (i.e., the ILTP as a concept and as a phenomenon). More particularly, we studied the micro-genesis of integrated knowledge while embracing a non-dualistic perspective on theory and practice in line with an inferentialist stance and approach. As explained in Sect. 2.2., such an inferentialist approach appears as a promising way to undertake the study of the theory-practice relationship (Guile, 2006, 2010). Moreover, we advocate that our inferentialist approach to the problem of integration is precisely what confers an innovative character to the present work. The empirical context of this study is in alternating school-based and work-based learning in the field of chemical process technology (CPT), just as in the investigations reported in Chaps. 3 and 4. Although the various studies share the same empirical context, the present study differs significantly in its methodology (as it will be explained in Sect. 5.3). Below we elaborate on the non-dualistic perspective and the inferentialist approach, which is central in our study. Next, we go deeper into what such perspective and approach imply for the present study and, in so doing, we provide a vocabulary that allows us to reformulate the central question in inferentialist terms.

5.1.1

Non-dualistic Perspective on Theory and Practice

The perspective we adopt in addressing our central question is of significance; it is precisely an unresolved epistemological disagreement that has been made responsible for inconsistencies in the conceptualisation of vocational or professional knowledge (Hiim, 2017). In general, perspectives that are non-conducive to generating new insights into integration fall into any of two extreme positions (Guile, 2006, 2010): in one extreme, theory and practice are taken as ontologically different (Loeffler, 2018), whereas in the opposite extreme, theory is underplayed by practice (e.g., Guile, 2006, 2010). In Chap. 2, we elaborated on the problems of both extreme positions. A non-dualistic stance on theory and practice is an epistemological position that, first, is conducive to resolving the theory-practice dichotomy and, second, does not abandon the analytical distinction between theory and practice. This means that ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ are not taken as intrinsically different concepts or, in other words, that they are not considered different at the ontological level. Instead, we take them to be distinct at the methodological level only. This implies that theoretical and practical judgements people pronounce (or articulate) are not assumed to be different

5.1 Introduction

107

in their nature, but in the way they are used. This, in turn, has consequences on our operationalisation and our methods, as it will be explained later. At this point, it is important to mention that such a non-dualistic stance lies at the heart of Robert Brandom’s (1994, 2000) inferentialist theory.

5.1.2

An Inferentialist Approach

In Sect. 2.2. we already introduced Brandom’s philosophical theories of Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism (Brandom, 1994, 2000), while in Sect. 2.3 we connected those theories to their use in education sciences (e.g., Derry, 2016). In this section, we review Brandom’s ideas in connection to our research purpose. Our rationale for adopting an inferentialist approach for the study of theorypractice integration hinges on the strong contribution of Inferentialism to resolving the epistemological problem, i.e., for constituting a means to analytically distinguish theoretical from practical knowledge without falling into dichotomist thinking (Guile, 2006, 2010). Furthermore, prior empirical research in the context of informal statistical inference (Bakker & Derry, 2011) has advanced Inferentialism as a valuable theoretical resource to assist epistemological reflection on challenges in education. In T-VET, these challenges refer to the increasingly required attention to concepts (Hiim, 2017), mastery of conceptual reasoning (Taylor et al., 2017), and a shift ‘from skill to knowledge’ (Winch, 2010).

5.1.2.1

Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism

Inferentialism is, roughly, a semantic theory developed by the philosopher Robert Brandom (1994, 2000). With this theory, Brandom introduces a shift from ‘conceptual representation’ to the ‘inferential role of concepts’ as the fundamental unit of meaning (Loeffler, 2018). The main idea is that the content (i.e., the meaning) of a concept is given by the use of this concept in an inference. This implies that any definition of a single concept is necessarily partial and, therefore, to understand the meaning of a concept, we need at least another concept that can be linked logically. Hence, we start to grasp the meaning of a concept when we use the concept in a judgement, while distinguishing what follows from that judgement (i.e., amplative inference), and what that judgement follows from (i.e., justificatory inference). In the next subsection, examples are given to clarify what the amplative and justificatory inferences involve. Brandom (2000) proposes that our capacity to understand a concept through ‘practical mastery over inferences’ is what distinguishes human beings from non inferential entities. In short, Inferentialism places emphasis on activity in the development of meaning (Derry, 2016); where ‘activity’ refers to thinking, speaking and any other action that is part of discursive reasoning. Others have condensed the lessons drawn from the inferentialist ideas into a single ‘mastery metaphor’ for

108

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

learning; here it is argued that “learning consists in the process by which learners come to master concepts and practices” (Taylor et al., 2017, p.769). This statement is key in the present study, as it expresses the perspective on learning underlying our further operationalisation and empirical work. The theory of Normative Pragmatism (Brandom, 1994, 2000) accompanies Inferentialism and proposes that reasoning occurs during speech acts, through linguistic communication that develops even without explicit logic vocabulary (i.e., autonomous speech), and embedded in a process of mutual social recognition (Loeffler, 2018). Brandom’s interest in and acknowledgement of the value of ‘autonomous speech’ or ‘natural language’ should not be misinterpreted or misused. The term ‘natural language’ is not to be equated to ‘practical language’ stemming from work-based experiences, and further opposed to ‘language associated with theoretical discourse’. Instead, and according to Brandom (Loeffler, 2018), ‘natural language’ simply refers to a language that not necessarily makes logical terms explicit (such as ‘therefore’, ‘if/then’), and that is nevertheless useful to draw inferences during speech acts. In sum, ‘natural language’ refers to a messy syntax and its implication on semantics. Additionally, it may be important to remind that the concepts used in the speech acts are culturally and historically determined (i.e., responding to the traditions that underpin the particular area of study), while they are also situationally determined. The participants in such autonomous speech acts play a language game, the so-called ‘game of giving and asking for reasons’ (GoGAR), by exchanging claims (or judgements), while giving reasons for their claims and challenging others to provide their own reasons (Brandom, 1994, 2000). During this interaction, speakers have to take responsibility for the implications of their claims and, simultaneously, keep score of each others’ interventions. In a particular context, speakers construct and continue revising their own normative ‘space of reasons’ (Sellars, 1956) or, more contextualised, ‘web of reasons’ (Bakker & Derry, 2011). In so communicating, speakers become responsive to each other’s reasons; this responsiveness (Loeffler, 2018) includes: (a) choosing what to pay attention to, (b) choosing to perform an action for a reason and (c) forming a judgement following a propositional or a perceptual input. Perhaps this idea of choosing what to pay attention to needs more clarification; it entails that one becomes sensible of the reasons why someone claims or does something, rather than for the causal factors. This is, moreover, not just becoming more sensible for others’ reasons, but certainly also for the reasons behind own claims and actions. The idea of responsiveness to reasons captures, as no other, the essence of Brandom’s inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories.

5.1.2.2

Kinds of Inferential Roles and Kind of Relations

Judgements may play different inferential roles (i.e., justificatory, amplative or critical). These roles are ‘norms of reasoning’ (Loeffler, 2018) that not only structure the space of reasons, but also govern the use of concepts. We, as rational beings, constantly update our system of judgements by synthesising, i.e., integrating (i.e., seeing the amplative and justificatory relations between the old and the new

5.1 Introduction

109

judgements, accommodating new information), weeding out (i.e., repelling claims incompatible with our judgements), and expanding (i.e., forming new judgements). More precisely, a theoretical or practical judgement ‘that P’ relates via norms of good reasoning to another actual or potential judgement, thus playing one of three roles (Loeffler, 2018). In justificatory reasoning, the judgement ‘that P’ follows inferentially from another judgement ‘that Q’. In amplative reasoning, a judgement ‘that Q’ follows inferentially from the judgement ‘that P’. In critical reasoning, a judgement ‘that Q’ is incompatible with the judgement ‘that P’. It is also possible to put this distinction of inferential roles in terms of responsibilities: while justificatory responsibility involves justifying our theoretical judgements and practical commitments properly, amplative responsibility involves drawing the right theoretical or practical consequences from our judgements and commitments, and critical responsibility involves weeding out incompatibilities from our system of judgements and commitments. Example of justificatory reasoning: Q justifies P. [P] [Q]

Dicarboxylic acids can be washed out with water, while monocarboxylic acids do not dissolve. A second carboxylic group results in higher polarity, and thus in higher solubility in water.

Example of amplative reasoning: Q follows inferentially from P (Q is an implication). [P] [Q]

There is a ‘high level of oxygen’ alarm (detected at the reactor’s outlet). The process conditions in the reactor must have changed (so the added oxygen is no longer being consumed).

Note: Such changing process conditions may be, e.g., that the feed temperature is too low or that there is a poison, among other alternative explanations. Example of critical reasoning: Q does not justify P, or P does not follow from Q. [P] [Q] [R]

You only add a small quantity of catalyst. The catalyst is very expensive. If the catalyst was inexpensive, we’d continue adding as little as we do now anyway.

Note: The proposition [R] plays a critical role. Although both [P] and [Q] are true and compatible, these propositions are not inferentially related. This is a problem of modality, i.e., the cost of the catalyst is not sufficient to predict the dose, rather the dose concerns reasons related to chemical kinetics. Finally, there are different ways in which sentences and cognitive mental states (e.g., beliefs) connect with each other (Loeffler, 2018). This is to say that there are different kinds of relations between sentences and beliefs (among other states): inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations. First, the inferential relation pertains, for example, to a proposition ‘If P then Q’ where P acts as antecedent and Q as predicate or consequent. Brandom’s idea of inference is broader than such formal

110

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

proposition (Causton, 2019). Second, the compatibility relation pertains to what would be evidence for a particular concept, or the implications of the use of that concept in the same or another context (e.g., conclusions, goals, purpose, utility). And third, the incompatibility relation pertains to what would be incompatible with a particular concept, or what does not follow from the use of a concept. However, given that others’ cognitive mental states are only accessible to us through their actions and assertions, in this study we take these inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations to be between sentences, rather than between sentences and mental states.

5.1.2.3

Theoretical and Practical Rationality

Brandom proposes that people are both theoretically rational and practically rational, and such rationalities are mutually assessed according to the norms of the shared space of reasons. As already stated in Sect. 2.2.5, “reasoning is simultaneously an epistemic and a semantic activity” (Loeffler, 2018, p. 40). In line with this framework, we prefer the terminology ‘theoretical and practical rationality’ to ‘theoretical and practical knowledge’ (the former being more appropriate and conducive to understanding integration). As explained before, non-duality refers to the idea that theoretical and practical judgements are not intrinsically different, rather the difference rests in the different use of concepts within judgements (Brandom, 1994). Furthermore, Brandom distinguishes a third use: observational judgements (or perceptual judgements, as we prefer to label them); although there is some discussion on whether perceptual utterances are inferential. While we already presented the three uses of judgements in Sect. 2.2.5, here we interpret them further in order to connect them to our study. Firstly, the theoretical judgements are claims about a concept (is not observable) one can only arrive at inferentially (Brandom, 1994). In this study, however, we do not make a distinction between inferences made on the spot and previously made inferences. Although a judgement may be adopted as a belief, it cannot be said that the corresponding claim is non-inferential. Secondly, the practical judgements express the intention to act in particular ways (Loeffler, 2018); here ‘intentionality’ refers to ‘motives for action’, i.e., purpose, goal or resolution. Thirdly, the perceptual judgements, which are formed in immediate response to perceptual input from one’s surroundings, make a crucial semantic contribution (Loeffler, 2018). The perceptual judgements are considered non-inferential, according to Brandom, though this is still debated (Loeffler, 2018). Any example intended to clarify the distinction between kinds of judgements would, necessarily, require some additional context description to account for how the particular judgement is used in a conversation. For instance, the claim, ‘You only need to add a small quantity of catalyst to get the reaction,’ may be, e.g., the conclusion of one’s knowledge on chemical reaction mechanisms or a conclusion after analysing the actual operation of a chemical reactor (theoretical judgement).

5.1 Introduction

111

The same statement may denote the intention to add such a small quantity with the purpose of accelerating the chemical reaction (practical judgement). Finally, this utterance may simply be the reading out loud the display of a flow ratio controller indicating the flow rate of the catalyst solution divided by the flow rate of the reactor feed (perceptual judgement). We postpone a more detailed discussion (about what counts as one or the other kind of judgement) until Sect. 5.2.1, which deals with the operationalisation of the theoretical framework.

5.1.3

The Present Study

In Chap. 2, we made explicit our rationale for adopting an inferentialist approach for the study of theory-practice integration. Here, we wish to identify more clearly the various roles of Inferentialism in this book. First, Inferentialism is at the basis of the non-dualistic position we adopted about theory and practice. Also, it is at the basis of the very conception of ‘learning’ (in line with the mastery metaphor), and the conception of the ILTP coined in the present work. Therefore, Brandom’s theory constitutes the cornerstone of our theoretical framework and methodology (in the broadest sense). Furthermore, in the investigation reported in the present chapter, Inferentialism has implications at the level of the detailed research design; it informed our methodological choices including, e.g., the selection of the empirical situations which became the object of our observations. In bringing Inferentialism all the way from a broad perspective to the actual empirical procedure, we gradually start leaving the theoretical framework section to enter the methods section. We acknowledge that there is some overlap between the sections, which is inherent to the close relationship between theory and methodology. In Sect. 5.2.1, we will propose an operationalisation of the inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories into a tool for analysing the integration of theoretical, perceptual, and practical judgements. More particularly, we will use such operationalisation to guide our empirical investigation aiming to understand the theory-practice integration, be it in terms of changes in responsiveness to different kinds of reasons. In the present study, we intend to develop new insights into the micro-genesis of integrated knowledge (read: rationality) to grasp the students’ growing understanding of concepts, as embedded in their claims. Indeed, this study is primarily concerned with verbal utterances or ‘speech acts’ only (rather than on relations between the verbal on one hand, and the skilful, hands-on acts on the other). In the selected empirical setting, such speech acts refer to conversations within triads, i.e., groups consisting of one student and two instructors who work together to assist the student’s learning during their apprenticeships. The particular reasoning under study, is the reasoning that occurs in a specific learning environment and pedagogical situation with many layers (including e.g., the curriculum, the pedagogical aim of the practice in which learners are acting, and the interrelatedness to assessment).

112

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Table 5.1 The objects of inquiry and units of analysis for the investigation of ILTP in inferentialist terms

Objects of inquiry

Unit of analysis

Unit of observation

Theoretical framework and operationalisation The non-dualistic distinction of theory and practice. The integrative learning of theory and practice as a concept. Theoretical and practical rationality. Social reasoning: the normative language game of giving and asking for reasons. –

Empirical research The integrative learning of theory and practice as a phenomenon.

Responsiveness to theoretical and practical reasons.

Chains of reasoning, decomposed into: kinds of judgements in use, relations between judgements, inferential roles that judgements play.

a

The unit of analysis responds to the level of the central (overarching) research question. The units of observation respond to the level of the break down into the actual research questions after operationalisation.

b

It is debatable which level of analysis is fine-grained enough to be considered ‘micro’. Here, ‘micro’ refers to the cognitive and social activity that take place in an educational setting, and is used in opposition to the ‘meso’ and ‘macro’ levels in education (such as the governance of the connectivity between learning environments in a particular educational system). ‘Micro-genesis’ relates to the generation of knowledge and the learning that occur at the levels of individual and collective reasoning. As explained before, ‘learning’ is understood in terms of growing mastery of concepts (Taylor et al., 2017); while the ‘integrative learning’, more particularly, is understood in terms of growing mastery of concepts that are embedded in judgements (which are used in theoretical and practical ways in social reasoning). Such theorisation of ‘learning’ and the ‘learning process’ is not fully achieved a priori, rather it is shaped and refined throughout our investigation. Advancing our conclusions at this point, responds to an interest in making the objects of inquiry and units of analysis (Säljö, 2009) more explicit. Table 5.1 shows the objects of inquiry and units of analysis corresponding to the two aspects of the present study, i.e.: (a) the preceding analysis of the theoretical framework and its operationalisation, and (b) the proper empirical investigation. In so doing, we aim at offering an additional clarification of our research aims. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows: The methods section starts with the operationalisation of the inferentialist framework. This is followed by a rationale for the research design and continues with the presentation of the empirical context. Next, we provide a description of our analytical procedures. Subsequently, the results section synthesises general findings, presents the findings that respond to each research question, and ends with the analysis of an encompassing case.

5.2 Methods

113

In the concluding section, we collect the fragmented findings into a consistent answer to the central question. Finally, in the discussion section, we address the limitations of the present study, the opportunities for continuing research, and the potential implications of this study (both for practitioners and for the research community).

5.2

Methods

The study reported in Chap. 5 is theoretically framed, i.e., to a large extent driven by our theoretical or analytic interest in Inferentialism as a lens for the study of integration. In this section we gradually move from the theoretical framework into the methods considerations. In so doing, we expose what Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism mean to our empirical research and how these theories are put to work. Such continuum from theory to method aims to reveal the extent of internal consistency and coherence of the present investigation.

5.2.1

Operationalisation of the Inferentialist Framework

The need to articulate the operationalisation of the theoretical framework selected is inspired by research that builds on third generation activity theory (Mwanza, 2001). The way in which the operationalisation develops (i.e., by establishing a number of principles that lead to the research questions) is inspired by research building on boundary-crossing theory (Bakker & Akkerman, 2014). We proceeded to the proper operationalisation in three steps. First, we formulated six principles immediately following the inferentialist framework. This included a conceptualisation of ‘theory-practice integration’. Second, we reformulated our central question using inferentialist terminology until we were able to define sharp research questions. Finally, we articulated how the operationalisation fits in the selected empirical context, i.e., how to interpret the data collected in the light of the inferentialist framework. The six principles are: 1. The terminology ‘theory-practice integration’ is used for consistency with previous studies, although it does not accurately convey the objects of integration. 2. The objects of integration are (according to their use): theoretical judgements, perceptual judgements, and practical judgements. 3. Responsiveness includes: choosing what to pay attention to, choosing to perform an action (real or hypothetical) for a reason, and forming a judgement following a propositional or a perceptual input.

114

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

4. The kinds of judgements are integrated through social reasoning. 5. A web of reasons is understood as a situated network of, e.g., concepts, judgements, intentions or motives for action, and the norms that govern the use of concepts in the particular context under consideration. 6. Integration is conceived of as a (manifest) ability to engage various kinds of judgements in explaining what follows from a concept and in tracing what a concept follows from. To understand the integrative learning process from a non-dualistic perspective on theory and practice is to identify any patterns in the integration of theory-practice in terms of responsiveness to reasons. In other words, in this study we sought to grasp how learners bring together various kinds of judgements in discursive (or social) reasoning within a particular web of reasons. More specifically, we studied how students used judgements in conversations with their instructors throughout a certain period. Our interest in dealing with this research question from an inferentialist view and from a process perspective, imposed a further break down of the question that would consider the various aspects involved, that would expose the key concepts and that would assist us in making further methodological decisions. Therefore, in consideration of the aforementioned six principles, we could break down the research aim using inferentialist concepts into two lower-level research questions: • (RQ1) How are analytically different kinds of judgements related to each other by the students and their instructors? In other words, in what ways are theoretical, perceptual, and practical judgements brought together into inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations? • (RQ2) What kind of inferential roles do theoretical, perceptual, and practical judgements play during exchanges between the students and their instructors? On the one hand, the operationalisation distinguishes two thematic aspects: the relations between judgements (RQ1), and the inferential roles of judgements (RQ2). On the other hand, two analytical approaches (i.e., cross-sectional, and longitudinal) allowed us to explore the data more fully. Each RQ1 and RQ2 contain several lowerlevel questions that we asked ourselves and that assisted us in the systematic analysis of the data. We make these questions explicit to the reader, although we do not pursue answering them in a fragmented fashion. Such lower-level questions are: (a) Are there any patterns of occurrence within triads? (b) Are there any patterns of occurrence across triads? (c) Is there any observable variation over time within triads? (d) Are there any observable variations over time across triads? We now need to elaborate on further considerations on the judgements (their form, uses and roles in reasoning) to fully explain the process of analyses.

5.2 Methods

5.2.1.1

115

The Form of Judgements

Propositions are actual or potential judgements ‘that P’ (Loeffler, 2018). Inferences have a propositional form and a propositional content: “a content of the sort that we express by the use of declarative sentences and ascribe by the use of ‘that’ clauses” (Brandom, 1994, p. 5). In their turn, concepts are sub-propositional (or sub-sentential) components that cannot be conceived of on their own (Brandom, 1994). Example: ‘That is a gas’ is a proposition. The person making this statement ‘that’ a particular substance is a gas, may be simply reading or repeating this information without understanding. Alternatively, the claimer is judging that certain substance is a gas (even without ever observing it); in this case the claimer is inferring that the substance must be a gas, based on their knowledge of the actual aggregation state and the knowledge of the reigning temperature and pressure conditions. The claimer is also judging that the substance is not a liquid or a solid. The sub-propositional term ‘gas’ is meaningless on its own. The inference is impossible if only the concept ‘gas’ is used, but it requires the concurrent use of at least another concept, such as ‘standard conditions of temperature and pressure’, and it presupposes some understanding of other concepts such as ‘liquid’ and ‘solid’. This example illustrates how the inferential connection of the concept ‘gas’ to other concepts is precisely what gives it its meaning. We do not apply transformations (e.g., predicative logic) to propositions in order to analyse them. In line with the framework adopted, which concedes merits to autonomous discourse, we are interested in the speakers’ natural language. Although people may lack any words and concepts to say or to think anything about their reasoning and discoursing, they are capable of reasoning and rational discourse (Loeffler, 2018). Furthermore, we interpret people’s speech while applying the principle of charity (Dare & Girard, 2015); i.e., to treat speakers as intelligent for a better evaluation of arguments (thus showing the best version of their arguments) and to treat all arguments as being non-deductive, unless the intention is clearly deductive. In our example, ‘If the substance is in vapour state at standard conditions, then it is a gas’ would be the formal counterpart of ‘That is a gas’ in natural language.

5.2.1.2

Distinguishing Kinds of Judgements

According to our framework, the various ‘kinds’ of judgements are not intrinsically different from each other, rather the distinction is made by their use. We do not classify ‘concepts’ into theoretical, perceptual or practical categories. Doing so is equivalent to treating them as ontologically distinctive entities (thus contradicting the spirit of Brandom’s ideas). Instead, we consider ‘claims’ or ‘judgements’ as liable to categorisation as theoretical, perceptual, or practical according to their use in the context of speech. The truth or falsehood of the judgements is not considered. Further in this chapter, when presenting the actual coding steps, we summarise the criteria we used to categorise judgements.

116

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

As discussed before (see Sects. 2.2.5 and 5.1.2), people are both theoretically and practically rational; this implies that mere guessing does not count as providing any judgement. The participants of a triad (not only the students) need to give reasons for their claims or give some other evidence of responsibility and commitment (if reasons are neither asked nor given) such as insisting on a point, showing confidence, or announcing a delayed justification. In sum, we do not consider ‘mere guessing’ as proper judgements and, therefore, we exclude assertions that lack backing.

Theoretical Judgements From Sect. 5.1.2, we consider theoretical judgement: (a) any claim resulting from an inference made on the spot, (b) any claim based on prior knowledge - theoretical, practical or perceptual -, either true or false, and of which the truth has not been verified observationally by any of the participants so far, and (c) any claim based on others’ saying so, either true or false, which reflects a belief based on the acknowledgement of others’ entitlement to claim so. In this study, however, we do not impose the restriction that the concept concerned in the judgement is not observable. The idea of ‘not observable’ is used from the viewpoint of the participants only, i.e., with the possibilities to observe that are available to them.

Perceptual Judgements From Sect. 5.1.2, we consider perceptual (or observational) judgement: any claim expressed in response to a speaker’s own perceptual input, either true or false. Such perceptual input may be related to the senses of hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. For example, ‘The pipe is cold,’ is considered a perceptual judgement if it originates from the speaker’s experience of touching the pipe. The question may be raised whether it is correct to equate ‘observational’ to ‘observed’. According to a realist ontological distinction, the fact that one can observe something is sufficient to call it ‘observational’, despite the contingent fact of whether it has been actually observed. Nevertheless, according to the analytical distinction by which we consider judgements in use, we treat a judgement as observational when it is about something that is not only expectedly observable by the actors considered (with the naked eye, with commonly accessible instruments, in daily situations, in occasionally occurring situations such as shut-downs, in pictures or videos showing actual objects or phenomena), but also actually observed by the speaker who makes the claim. From this, it also follows that the judgements formed in response to vicarious perceptual input are not considered observational, but theoretical (claims based on others’ saying so).

5.2 Methods

117

Practical Judgements From Sect. 5.1.2, we consider practical judgements: any claim denoting an intention or a purpose to achieve something or to prevent something from happening. We include in this category: (a) concrete decisions on how to intervene in the manufacturing process - albeit imaginarily - in a particular scenario; (b) intentions, general intentional practices, commitments to do (or not to do) something, actions, or decisions with further purposes, e.g., seeking operational excellence in terms of process safety considerations (other than safety attitude), environmental protection, reliability or productivity. Finally, the owner of the intention or the agent performing the purposive (hypothetical) action may be the speaker making the claim, or the speaker may be reporting someone else’s intentions and purposes.

5.2.1.3

Relations and Inferential Roles

In the present operationalisation, we take the inferential, compatibility or incompatibility relations as being between sentences (instead of between sentences and cognitive mental states), as already explained in Sect. 2.2.3. Table 5.2 presents an overview of relations between sentences and inferential roles. The letters M, P and Q refer to judgements or propositions. In cases where the relation is inferential, we distinguish three inferential roles (i.e., justificatory, amplative and critical), as explained in Sect. 5.1.2. In the case of inferential sentences, it is meaningful to identify the related judgements as antecedent and consequent, although these elements not necessarily appear neatly next to each other (i.e., the data from the discursive exchanges is messy), and they are often not overtly linked by the logical words ‘if’ and ‘then’ Table 5.2 Relations between sentences and inferential roles of judgement

Relation between judgements Inferential If M then P. If P then Q.

Compatibility

Incompatibility

If P then Q. If P then R. (R not Q) M: The material flows. P: It is in liquid state. M: The substance has a lower density than water. P: The substance sinks in water.

Justificatory role of the antecedent M M justifies P

Amplative role of the consequent Q

Critical role of the judgement R

Q follows from P

n/a

n/a

Q does not follow from P (R has backing) n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

118

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

(i.e., we deal with natural language). Moreover, one or more antecedents may be implicit. We consider a judgement as justificatory, amplative or critical when it acts as a consequent in an inference and it does so by playing, respectively, a justificatory, amplative or critical inferential role. Non-inferential relations between P and Q can only be identified as a compatibility or an incompatibility on consideration of the content of the propositions; this implies that some content knowledge is required to code for these categories. Regarding compatibility sentences, a judgement can provide evidence for a concept in terms of a collateral assertion (rather than as a justification) or simply give some sort of confirmation without adding new evidence. In other words, the claim ‘that Q’ is compatible with ‘that P’ if it may be the case, but is not necessarily the case. Regarding incompatibility sentences, a judgement states what would be absurd or inconsistent with a particular concept, or it states something that cannot follow from the use of a concept. In other words, the claim ‘that Q’ is incompatible with ‘that P’ if it cannot be the case. Furthermore, the additional sentence ‘that X’ plays a critical role in revealing the incompatibility. Note that we exclude mere mistakes from this category (when we have reasons to interpret certain statements in such a way) because slips are not actually meant by the speaker, i.e., no responsibility or commitment can be attributed to this speaker.

5.2.2

Rationale for the Methods Selection

To study patterns and variations in students’ responsiveness to reasons during discursive exchanges is to study how students use judgements in conversations with their instructors (or their peers) throughout a certain period. Therefore, we select a longitudinal qualitative research method based on observations of social interactions between students and their instructors. We selected observations (Adler & Adler, 1994) to capture responsiveness in terms of how the judgements employed relate to each other and in terms of their inferential roles. All observations were audio-recorded and supplemented by field notes, thus generating qualitative data, and allowing subsequent content-conversational analysis (Clift, 2016; Johnstone, 2008) of transcriptions and notes. The focus of the analysis was primarily on the content, while we considered conversational aspects as well (e.g., intonation) to assist the interpretation of the speech. Other non-verbal behaviour (e.g., eye contact and posture) was captured, to a small extent, by means of the field notes, but we mainly neglected these data. Further on, in the subsection dedicated to the analysis, we extend the rationale for the selection and implementation of these analytical techniques. In general, the natural empirical setting to conduct observations has several advantages, but also limitations (see Chap. 3). In particular, we also chose the natural setting on consideration of issues related to the laboratory and stand-alone simulation settings. First, the laboratory setting imposes an a priori selection of which data to collect; in inferentialist terms, this is equivalent to artificially limiting

5.2 Methods

119

the ‘webs of reason’ of the people involved (i.e., networks of concepts and the norms regulating their use in discourse) instead of letting them emerge. Predefining these webs, may result in an underestimation or an overestimation of the extensions of such webs. Second, a simulation setting consisting of a problem-solving task (invoking concepts and prompting judgements) is simply not coherent with the theoretical framework embraced in the present chapter, where discursive reasoning is chief. Any simulation setting, moreover, could not remain stand-alone and would have to be accompanied by, at least, stimulated recall interviews. The longitudinal design relied on a repeated measures approach that is consistent with capturing the process aspect of integration, be it in terms of variation over time. The analysis involved a comparison of patterns of responsiveness at extreme data points (i.e., the first and the last instances observed). This longitudinal approach allowed us to perform within-case comparisons to reveal any variation. Beyond this initial analysis, we performed a further cross-case comparison that aimed to reveal any opportunity for generalisation.

5.2.3

Data Collection

5.2.3.1

The Participants

We selected the single participating company for convenience. Building on the preceding study, we had learnt that this company (a) hosted simultaneously several students attending the dual CPT programme and (b) had a strong learning culture at all levels of the organisation that was reflected in its engagement to develop operators as knowledge workers whose role goes beyond routine, hands-on tasks. Within this company, the particular production unit was selected in consultation with a group of tutors, according to criteria such as: manufacturing process of significant complexity, large number of operations as much as possible in line with the curriculum (e.g., chemical reaction in general, catalytic combustion, fired heating, distillation, extraction, filtration, compression, mass transport and heat recuperation) and their associated technology (equipment and instrumentation), the richness of the scientific and technical contents involved in those operations, and opportunities to relate what each learning environment can offer. Additionally, our design specified that all participants would be part of the same integrated production unit, for the sake of a manageable associated knowledge domain. Having selected the production unit, we included the whole population of students, tutors, and mentors. These students, tutors and mentors were grouped into triads by the school and the workplace in collaboration, and for the purpose of the apprenticeships (rather than for the purpose of our investigation). Eventually, we worked with the five triads that were formed, which means: 5 students from two different schools, 4 tutors from two different schools (as one tutor appears in two triads), 5 mentors from the same integrated production unit. In Sect. 5.2.5, we explain the criteria for further research data selection and concentration. The study received a final positive clearance from the University Research Ethical Committee before the start of the data collection.

120

5.2.3.2

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Observations: Settings and Organisation

As explained in Chap. 3, the inferentialist study here presented, proceeded in the context of alternating learning environments in the CPT sector. We selected two empirical settings, i.e., naturally occurring formative-evaluative sessions and field tours, because we expected them to provide us with outstanding opportunities to observe the interactions (or discursive exchanges) between students and their instructors (i.e., among the interlocutors of each participating student-tutor-mentor triad). All evaluative-formative sessions for the five triads were observed and audiorecorded, i.e., four audio-recorded observations per triad. Additionally, we observed each triad on one or two occasions during plant tours in the field. In the next section, which is dedicated to the analytical procedure, we present an account of the actual inclusion of the data, as not all collected data was analysed. Figure 5.1 shows the chronological distribution of observations throughout the programme; this distribution was such that the first two observations took place during a first period of workbased learning (weeks 10–16 of the programme), while the last two observations occurred during a second period of work-based learning (weeks 34 to 41 of the programme). Such sampling, rather than a methodological consideration, responded to the affordances of the natural setting (i.e., we observed all triads to which we had access, on all occasions the triads met, throughout the whole programme). Twenty-five non-participatory observations were conducted by the first author, most of them in a control room (audio-recorded), and a few in the production plant. The added value of the observations (i.e., the presence of the researcher during the interactions, rather than the recording alone), was in assisting the interpretation of the conversations. The analysis was inevitably interpretative: no definitive claims can be made about the function of one or another element in the conversation. Certainly, “understanding what the text [read: conversation] might have meant in its original context requires understanding the physical world, the social world, and the linguistic world” (Johnstone, 2008, p. 94). Therefore, we needed to know much more than the transcription itself showed: who was involved, their purposes, their expectations, and the physical and technological aspects of the context. Programme week Learning School-based Simul.-based Work-based Observaons of triads V W X Y Z

1 ... 7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 … 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

1 1

* 1

1 1

2 2 2

*

2 2

3 3* 3* 3

4 4 4

3*

4* 4

Fig. 5.1 Chronological distribution of observations throughout the programme (*) field tour

5.2 Methods

121

The participants did not have to invest any time-consuming effort to contribute to the data collection. They appreciated that they could be part of this piece of research; the participation was to them a contribution to their continuing professionalisation. In this respect, we provided feedback to the corps of tutors and to the corps of mentors. This feedback (given after completion of the data collection) consisted on written reports and separate presentations; it contained observations on practices, e.g.: distribution of time allocated to each part of the session (including the balance between the formative and the mere evaluative aspects), quality and extent of participation of the tutor and the mentor, kinds of responses involved in the conversation as a result of tasks and questioning (from fragmentary factual or declarative knowledge, to on the spot complex inferencing). Additionally, we included a discussion of the possible implications of these practices on the students’ learning process, and we suggested several guidelines. Regarding the content, we observed some unspotted ‘incongruencies’ and missed opportunities to ask for relevant reasons; these observations resulted in guidelines as well.

5.2.4

Analysis

We begin this subsection with a brief account of the use of the data. Then we present the rationale for our selection of analytic techniques in terms of how they relate to the focus of the study; this refers to: chunking into sentences, particular transcription rules and two-step coding. Finally, we summarise these considerations into an analysis procedure.

5.2.4.1

Use of the Data and Units of Analysis

The dataset as a whole (i.e., recordings, field notes and documents) contributed to a thorough understanding of the instructional context in which the study is embedded, thus conferring ecological validity (Cohen et al., 2011) to our interpretations during the data analysis. Indeed, the data that were not analysed in detail (according to the two-step coding, etc.) still was taken into account; i.e.,, they contributed to the thick description of the empirical setting and, to some extent, how this setting is embedded in a broader instructional context. Subsequently, we selected three triads at random (from among the five triads observed) to reduce the large body of material, and so to turn it into a subset of manageable size. We proceeded to the case-by-case codification of the first and the last transcripts of the selected triads (i.e., those corresponding to observations 1 and 4), as the focus on the start and end of the programme may be expected to reveal more clearly any variation in responsiveness over time. Having coded these first three cases, we arrested any further analysis on consideration that data saturation had been reached. In sum, six of twenty observations were both transcribed and coded. Finally, we selected particular excerpts within the data to

122

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

whole data set (incl. embedding in context)

triad V

triad W

triad X

triad Y

triad Z

all obs.

all obs.

all obs.

all obs.

all obs.

all obs.

all obs.

all obs.

three triads subset (manageable size) start/end programme (focus on extreme variation) relevant excerpts (focus on study purpose) 35 selected chains of reasoning (focus on theory & practice)

obs. 1

obs. 4

obs. 1

obs. 4

obs. 1

obs. 4

obs. 1

obs. 4

obs. 1

obs. 4

obs. 1

obs. 4

6

8

6

3

7

5

Fig. 5.2 Progressive data concentration

perform the fine-grained content-conversational analysis. We retained data excerpts in line with the focus of our study (i.e., the use of concepts, cognition, and reasoning). Figure 5.2 summarises the use of the data collected in terms of its progressive focus. The last step of data concentration (i.e., data base size reduction) shown in this figure was carried out after coding. We explain how this selection of chains of reasoning proceeded when we describe the results; at this point, it is important to emphasise that we ultimately selected 35 chains of reasoning and that such chains are our units of analysis. Note that we do not make the claim that the selected triads are ‘representative’ of the whole set of collected data (as such would be a positivistic and unwarranted statement). Our selection was randomised because we had no other defendable reason to select one or the other triad: In this study, any other base for selection than the randomised one would have introduced bias. The generalisability of the findings is not in the representativeness of the sample, rather it is supported by our comparative between-triad analysis.

5.2.4.2

Selection and Use of Analytical Techniques

Content-Conversation Analysis Our interest in the structure of the conversations was subordinated to our interest in their contents. We chose to perform a content-conversation analysis in which the conversational aspect was a means to assist the interpretation of the data. Although we used elements of conversation analysis, such as a recommended heuristic (Johnstone, 2008), our procedure was not simply (a particular case of) conversation analysis. For instance, rather than focusing on interaction in terms of ‘turn-taking

5.2 Methods

123

rules’ or in terms of ‘the structure of sequences’ (Clift, 2016), we focused on: (a) what speakers were talking about, (b) who said what, (c) what motivated their comments, e.g., asserting, justifying, contradicting, expressing intention, (d) the context of each conversation, e.g., what is the particular purpose, who the participants are, and to what extent they participate, and (e) how each conversation fits into the broader programme and across triads.

Transcription Rules In the same line, in our efforts to interpret the data correctly (i.e., as meant by the speakers) and reliably throughout the entire analysis, we selected a particular transcription rule, a particular chunking approach, a two-step coding technique and the use of queries. Firstly, in view of applying a particular chunking approach, we needed to include a system to describe intonation in the transcriptions and to interpret it consistently. We selected a transcription system that is accurate in the sense that it highlights what the research is interested in (Johnstone, 2008), i.e., to represent the speech (rather than the speakers) and to represent, primarily, the content (while not losing the main details of speech that may indicate each speaker’s commitment, entitlement, authority, or doubt). These transcriptions rules, presented in the endnotes of this chapter, consist of adapted transcription conventions for conversation analysis (Clift, 2016).

Chunking into Sentences, Events, and Episodes Secondly, we selected sentences and events as units of discourse for the chunking of data prior to coding. Indeed, we adopted two levels of ‘chunking’ among various ways that can be used for dividing the flow of oral discourse into units, i.e., ‘centre of interest’ (almost the same as sentences) and ‘utterance’ (almost the same as events). The methodological literature presents several ways of describing the basic units of talk, each highlighting certain aspect of the discourse function (Johnstone, 2008). We used, precisely, such preferably highlighted aspects as criteria for the selection of the unit of discourse: (a) the centres of interest are sets of intonation units corresponding to roughly one predication each that highlight the cognitive and the structural aspects of discourse, and (b) the utterances are stretches of speech with a single intonation contour each that highlight the semantic aspect of discourse. Furthermore, whenever appropriate to enhance comprehension, we chose to divide the transcriptions into episodes, i.e., semantic units of intermediate size between sentences and whole texts that consisted of internally coherent sequences of propositions (Johnstone, 2008).

124

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Two-Step Coding As explained before, the operationalisation we carried out involved putting the various concepts borrowed from Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism into our empirical context. Table 3 presents a summary of such contextualisation, which is part of our analysis protocol, and which evidences our efforts to interpret and code our data in a reliable way. In other words, we used Table 3 to classify chunks of data into the following categories and subcategories according to how they were used: kinds of judgements (theoretical, perceptual, practical), kinds of relations (inferential, compatibility, incompatibility) and inferential roles (justificatory, amplative, critical). These categories do not ‘divide’ anything at the ontological level, rather they act as an analytical ‘artifice’ to reveal different uses (i.e., uses of judgements in a theoretical or in a practical fashion). Note that in Table 5.3, we refrain from providing quotes that illustrate each category; such quotes are only meaningful if they are surrounded by their context of use. Therefore, we need to postpone the illustrations until the results section, where each category is illustrated ‘in use’ (i.e., in the conversational context). We acknowledge that we are asking the reader to take a leap of faith at this point, but we will return to this issue and provide clarifying illustrations at the appropriate time, while presenting the results (see Sects. 5.3.2 and 5.3.3). If we provided illustrations at this point, they would necessarily be decontextualised and that would introduce new concerns and confusion. It is important to emphasise that we did not classify concepts as theoretical, perceptual, or practical. Doing so would be equivalent to treating them as ontologically distinctive entities (thus contradicting the spirit of Brandom’s ideas). Instead, we considered claims or judgements as liable to categorisation into theoretical, perceptual, or practical according to their use in the context of the speech. We imported the transcriptions into a computer software package for assisted qualitative data analysis and we proceed to the first step of coding, which consisted primarily of a deductive classification into nodes. These nodes were setup a priori and in line with our operationalisation of the theoretical framework. Additionally, several nodes were included while coding to allow for inductive coding of emergent insights, e.g., paradigmatic instances of the meta-category ‘responsiveness’, focus on recurrent concepts, entitlements, and commitments, as well as exceptional uses of concepts (including misconceptions). Subsequently, we ordered the coded fragments into judgements or propositions in a spreadsheet, with a minimum of expansion of the natural language (i.e., virtually equivalent to the ‘raw’ data). Simultaneously, and before any contextual link to the remainder of the conversation categorisation would be lost, we revised the first coding that categorised the judgements by their use (into theoretical, perceptual, or practical). This second-step of coding yielded a tabulated collection of judgements. Finally, we grouped the judgements into chains of reasoning using episodes as criteria (i.e., internally coherent sequences of propositions), and we completed the categorisation of those judgements according to the relation between them (inferential, compatibility, incompatibility) and according to the inferential role of the consequents in each inference (justificatory, amplative, critical).

5.2 Methods

125

Table 5.3 Keys for contextualisation of the theoretical framework (continued) Categorisation of judgements (claims, assertions) according to their use Theoretical Claims about a concept one can arrive at only inferentially (before or during judgements the discursive exchange). Inclusions: (a) inferences made on the spot, as opposed to ‘prior knowledge’ (b) claims based on prior knowledge (c) claims based on others’ saying so (e.g., beliefs, assumptions) Practical Claims conveying the intention to act (or not to act) in certain ways. judgements Inclusions: (a) decisions on how to (potentially) intervene in the manufacturing process in a particular scenario (b) intentions, general intentional practices, commitments to do (or not to do) something, actions or decisions with further purposes Perceptual Non-inferential claims formed in response to perceptual input. judgements Inclusion: Claim formed in response to own perceptual input, i.e., the result of using any sense (physical ability). Categorisation of relations between judgements according to their use Inferential Given a proposition, claim, assertion, or judgement ‘that P’ relation an inferential sentence utters one of the following: (a) ‘what P follows from’ (If M then P) (b) ‘what follows from P’ (If P then Q) Compatibility Given the propositions ‘that P’ and ‘that Q’ relation a compatibility relation expresses: P and Q But P does not imply Q, and Q does not follow from P No inferential relation between P and Q. The claim ‘that Q’ is compatible with ‘that P’ if it may be the case, but is not necessarily the case. Incompatibility Given the propositions ‘that P’ and ‘that Q’ relation and given the argument ‘if P then Q’ the sentence ‘that X’ reveals that the argument cannot be true. The claim ‘that Q’ is incompatible with ‘that P’ if it cannot be the case. Categorisation of inferential roles of consequents according to their use Justificatory role Proposition that gives grounds for a previous proposition. Amplative role Proposition that introduces the consequences or implications of a previous proposition. Critical role Proposition that criticises or contradicts a previous proposition, often revealing an incompatibility.

Queries First, and in line with the focus of our study, we used filters to isolate and select the chains of reasoning that integrate theoretical and practical judgements. Secondly, we configured several queries to grasp the predominance of each category, in both a qualitative and a quantitative fashion. Other queries in the form of pivot tables with filters and slicers were used to explore for patterns when crossing the categories in

126

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

line with our research questions, i.e., (1) kinds of judgements versus relations, and (2) kinds of judgements versus inferential roles. Finally, we also used several temporary filters to explore in turns for the various lower-level questions raised in the introduction: (a) Are there any patterns of occurrence within triads? (b) Are there any patterns of occurrence across triads? (c) Is there any observable variation over time within triads? (d) Are there any observable variations over time across triads? Qualitative-Quantitative Analysis Firstly, the selected chains of reasoning (according to the criteria already explained) were analysed qualitatively, as whole chunks; this allowed for classification of the kinds of judgements according to their use in the conversational context, for identification of the kinds of relations (RQ1) and for identification of the inferential roles of judgements (RQ2). Secondly, in the case of RQ1, we counted the joint frequencies for all possible combinations of kinds of judgements and kinds of relations (e.g., times that any judgement was used practically and inferentially) beyond their belonging to any particular chain of reasoning (thus, this time, de-contextualised). Thirdly, in the case of RQ2, we counted the concurrent frequencies for all possible combinations of kinds of judgements and kinds of roles (e.g., times that any judgement was used practically and amplatively) beyond their belonging to any particular chain of reasoning (thus de-contextualised). This all formed the basis to construct the visualisations and pivot tables that we finally described and interpreted. 5.2.4.3

Analysis Procedure

In the preceding sections, we have introduced the analytical techniques we used, along with the rationale for their selection. The analysis relied on our operationalisation of the inferentialist framework, without overt or covert hypotheses (or any other a priori conviction we pretended to confirm empirically). Rather, we only report the findings that emerged when we looked at the data through the inferentialist lens. We will conclude (see Sect. 5.4) that the inferentialist lens is conducive to understand integration (and that such integration starts at the level of reasoning).

5.2.5

Trustworthiness

We consulted two scholars with a background in Philosophy and in Educational Sciences (both familiar with Inferentialism) about our full research design (including the justification, the problem formulation, the principles for operationalisation and the methodology) at an early stage of the study. Their contributions resulted in minor modifications of our operationalisation.

5.3 Results

127

In aiming at correct and consistent interpretations during the data analysis, we opted for second independent coding of one case. The consolidation process was conducted by the first author, and involved both an independent coder with a background in Chemical Engineering and the research expertise of the second author in the field of Educational Sciences. Doubts were clarified and any disagreement was analysed and corrected in the protocol. The final coding scheme, which was ultimately used to code all the data in a consistent way, provided sharper descriptions of each category as well as examples extracted from a separate transcription. Table 2 synthesises the operationalisation of the theoretical framework for this study and constitutes the consolidated coding protocol.

5.2.6

Reporting

For privacy reasons, neither the name of individual participants nor their organisations are mentioned in dissemination documents. For the sake of confidentiality, proprietary information and specific know-how are not disclosed in the illustrations presented. The names of common chemical compounds and species are mentioned, while compounds and species particularly related to the case study are referred to by a pseudonym. Physical, chemical, and thermodynamic laws are mentioned, as well as physical and chemical properties, while particular operating conditions related to the case study are omitted or changed within comparable magnitudes.

5.3 5.3.1

Results General Description

The results section starts with a brief description of the data and first general findings. Next, each research question is addressed separately in consideration of their various aspects (sub-questions). Finally, we present an overarching case that illustrates how social reasoning varies over time within a single triad, thus treating the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) phenomenon. As shown in Table 5.4, in all cases, most judgements brought to the discussions were theoretical; a much smaller fraction consisted of practical judgements and, finally, an even smaller fraction was perceptual. We re-emphasise that this categorisation of judgements, in line with our adopted theoretical framework, responds to how judgements were used by the speakers in the conversational contexts observed. In other words, the categorisation is analytical, not ontological. The categories of judgements in the first column of Table 5.4 correspond to the codes we used in our analysis according to the theoretical framework. While the first three labels are self-explanatory (i.e., ‘theoretical’, ‘practical’, ‘perceptual’), the following categories require additional clarification. The category ‘guessing’ refers

128

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Table 5.4 Frequencies (in %) of use of judgements per triad and per point in time

Theoretical Practical Perceptual Guessing Question/req. Non-judg Implicit

TRIAD Z Obs Z1 45 6 4 4 26 12 2 100

Obs Z4 56 17 5 2 17 2 3 100

TRIAD Y Obs Y1 59 9 1 2 21 7 2 100

Obs Y4 53 7 2 3 33 0 2 100

TRIAD X Obs X1 43 8 9 4 29 7 0 100

Obs X4 45 13 8 4 21 7 1 100

to mere guessing, i.e., largely unsupported claims, often accompanied by longer hesitation and followed by opposing alternatives by the same speaker. The category ‘question/req.’ refers to any utterance with a request function (albeit not necessarily in question form), e.g., “Why do you use water there?” or “Draw the T-x curves”. The category ‘non-judg’ refers to utterances that seem to lack all functions or uses from the preceding categories, e.g., “Not yet” or “I have no idea”. Finally, the category ‘implicit’ does not respond to recorded data, rather it contains statements (obviously present though unspoken) that we provisionally added to the actors’ chains of reasoning during the analysis in order to understand what function the surrounding explicit statements were playing. For example, the statement “Our main reaction is between [X] and air; actually, only the oxygen ‘cause the nitrogen won’t participate in the reaction” presupposes an understanding that the air is mainly composed by oxygen and nitrogen (implicit in this speech), and that the nitrogen behaves largely as an inert substance (implicit in this speech). In accordance with the marked predominance of theoretical judgements and the purpose of our study, the present description of the research findings focuses primarily on the theoretical judgements and their use, along with the practical ones, while we do not particularly attend to those that are perceptual. It follows that we select only those chains of reasoning for our analysis in which both theoretical and practical judgements are present. The selected chains represent 32% of the total number of chains corresponding to the three considered triads (during their first and last observations). This relatively low percentage does not have to be problematic; it only means that the remaining chains consisted of other kinds of judgements; for instance, we found theory-theory integration and theoretical-perceptual integration. As Table 5.5 shows, moreover, there was no steady quantitative increase of combined theory-practice chains over time. This first finding may suggest a need to de-emphasise any overreliance on the power of the evaluative-formative sessions to promote theory-practice integration, i.e., the simultaneous presence of both instructors (and their actual participation in the discursive exchange) may not automatically guarantee such pursued integration. However, this evidence alone does not necessarily mean that the frequency of theory-practice integration remains

5.3 Results Table 5.5 Fraction of selected chains of reasoning

129 TRIAD Z Obs Z1 Obs Z4 6/23 8/21 (26%) (38%)

TRIAD Y Obs Y1 Obs Y4 6/19 3/12 (32%) (25%)

TRIAD X Obs X1 Obs X4 7/20 5/21 (35%) (24%)

invariable over time, as we still need to consider how judgements relate to each other (RQ2). In the remainder of this section, although we care about frequencies, we focus primarily on the qualitative aspects of our data. First, to address the sub-question RQ1, we focused on the distinction between inferential and non-inferential relations by studying the relationships between kinds of judgements within delimited chains of reasons. Further understanding of what kind of inferences were being made in each chain is the core of sub-question RQ2 and will be discussed later.

5.3.2

Research Question 1

The question of how analytically different kinds of judgements were related to each other by the students and their instructors pertains to the ways in which theoretical and practical judgements were brought together into inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations. The analysis involved a focus on: (a) patterns of occurrence within triads, (b) patterns of occurrence across triads, (c) variation over time within triads, and (d) variation over time across triads.

5.3.2.1

Analytical Distinction of the Relations Between Judgements

Regardless of whether or not the kinds of judgements were themselves the products of inferences, what was theoretical and what was practical appeared often inferentially integrated (albeit in longer or shorter chains of reasoning). In fewer cases, the relations between judgements were mere compatibilities (non-inferential). Incompatibility relations (non-inferential) involving theoretical and practical judgements were not found. Unlike the triads X and Y, in the case of triad Z, there was more extended use of non-judgements (e.g., questions and requests). Although such non-judgements most of the times remained themselves unrelated, they facilitated further reasoning (instead of interrupting the chain). In some cases, what seemed a mere question was actually a judgement that provided a premise (an antecedent). The following excerpts illustrate the use of judgements within the context of chains of reasoning. It is precisely this context that enables the distinction between theoretical and practical use of judgements, as well as the distinction between inferential and non-inferential relations between judgements. Note that, throughout our analysis, the truth of the speakers’ claims was not assessed, which

130

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

does not suggest that we accepted the claims as being correct. Certainly, we found several claims that were false and others that were debatable, or their truth could never be assessed without complementary information. The next chain of reasoning shows inferential relations among theoretical and practical judgements. Note that, in the following examples, each judgement or claim is accompanied by information about who the speaker was ([S] for the student, [T] for the tutor and [M] for the mentor), a classification of this judgement according to how it was used and, finally, the kind of relation such judgement participated in. Example of inferential relations (where ON and OL represent two substances that can be separated by distillation): [T] Why are there another two distillation columns still necessary downstream the pure ON distillation? [S] In order to remove the OL further [S] because OL is ON, indirectly [S] indirectly ON that we can recover [T] So then you can dehydrogenate it again.

[non-judg]

[n/a]

[practical] [theoretical] [practical] [theoretical]

[inferential] [inferential] [inferential] [inferential]

Source: Chain 6, Obs X1 We need to use pseudonyms for the names of chemical compounds and mask actual process conditions, because this is proprietary information of the participating company. Rather than using ‘compound 1 and compound 2’ or even ‘A and B’, we use ‘OL and ON’ for the pseudonym to retain information about the chemical properties of the compounds (without fully disclosing the formulas). “OL” refers to an alcohol, while “ON” refers to a ketone. The dehydrogenation of an alcohol results in a ketone (Morrison & Boyd, 1998), and this is relevant to understand the conversation. As an example of how claims were ‘categorised’ according to the conversational context, we discuss why the aforementioned claim “So then you can dehydrogenate it again” made by the tutor, was considered to be theoretically used (see also Table 5.3). Firstly, the claim is clearly not perceptual. Secondly, it is neither practical: The conversational context indicates that the tutor’s claim does not entail any intentionality or purpose, what would make the judgement ‘practical’. If any speaker had said e.g., “you need to dehydrogenate OL in order to recover ON”, such claim would have been coded as a practical judgement. Finally, the tutor is clearly using the statements just given by the student to infer what kind of chemical reaction (i.e., dehydrogenation) takes place when you are recovering ON which is still in the OL form. The tutor is interested in the concept of ‘dehydrogenation’. Furthermore, the above conversation illustrates the important role that an instructor plays (in this case, the tutor) as they engage in the student’s reasoning. Indeed, in verbalising the concept of dehydrogenation, the tutor is making explicit what the connection is between OL and ON. This is a clever intervention of the tutor, making

5.3 Results

131

sure that the student can label the connection between OL and ON. This is necessary, as the student’s claim “because OL is ON, indirectly” does not say whether such connection is either implicit or absent in their reasoning. Labelling the concept is not a merely representational manoeuvre, rather it opens a series of implications: now the student can think about dehydrogenation more generally and further, e.g., (a) justify why the reactor is operated at certain process conditions of temperature and pressure or (b) even predict certain conditions that would result in a process upset. In fewer cases, the relations between judgements could be categorised as mere compatibilities (non-inferential); the speakers either wished to add complementary information to a previous claim, or (in fact most often) they believed they were inferring something while they were not. Identifying the lack of a logic relation required some content knowledge. Example of compatibility relations: [S] You get formic acid and the like, [S] then the sodium hydroxide is used for neutralisation.

[theoretical] [compatibility] [practical] [compatibility]

Source: Chain 8, Obs X1 Following the above example, the question may arise as to why we considered this as a compatibility relation instead of an inferential relation. In general, the presence of acids is indeed compatible with the risk of corrosion and the need to neutralise, but this is not necessarily the case. In the example case there was no inference, as nothing was known about the materials (e.g., carbon steel or stainless steel) and the prevailing process conditions (e.g., temperature and acids concentration): there were elements the student could not know at that stage and that were necessary to build the pretended reasoning. Therefore, the student was not reasoning but was only reproducing (declaring) theoretical beliefs. Finally, incompatibility relations (non-inferential) involving theoretical and practical judgements were not found. We did find contradictory judgements, but those contradictions never remained mere incompatibilities, as they we spotted and exploited by the triad to make new inferences. Despite the speakers’ difficulties to identify compatibilities, they were able to identify incompatibilities assisted by critical judgements acting as a signal. Further elaboration on the critical role of judgements is presented when dealing with sub-question RQ2.

5.3.2.2

Focus on Patterns of Frequency

Figure 5.3a–c present frequencies for the kinds of judgements and their relations as used in discourse. Here, four quadrants are delimited by the horizontal and vertical lines. Our variables are categoric; therefore, these lines do not represent scales, but simply divide the plane into four regions (i.e., four categories). The coloured areas

132

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

a

praccal judgements in inferenal relaons

praccal judgements in compability relaons X1 = Triad X, Start of programme

b

praccal judgements in inferenal relaons

praccal judgements in compability relaons Y1 = Triad Y, Start of programme

c

praccal judgements in inferenal relaons

praccal judgements in compability relaons Z1 = Triad Z, Start of programme

theorecal judgements in inferenal relaons

theorecal judgements in compability relaons X4 = Triad X, End of programme

theorecal judgements in inferenal relaons

theorecal judgements in compability relaons Y4 = Triad Y, End of programme

theorecal judgements in inferenal relaons

theorecal judgements in compability relaons Z4 = Triad Z, End of programme

Fig. 5.3 Kinds of judgements and their relations as used. Patterns of frequencies: (a) Triad X, (b) Triad Y, (c) Triad Z

5.3 Results

133

represent frequencies of occurrence. The vertices that define such areas indicate joint frequencies of occurrence and are positioned along the frequency scales represented by the arrowed axes. The initial point of the arrows does not represent any meaningful intersection, rather an absence (i.e., zero frequency of occurrence). These figures are the result of a qualitative-quantitative analysis. The first quadrant (upperright), which stands for theoretical judgements involved in inferential relations, presents the largest area and, thus, the higher frequency of joint occurrence. In other terms, the speakers’ judgements were mostly used theoretically (rather than practically) and inferentially (rather than compatibly). The second quadrant (upperleft), which represents judgements that were used both practically and inferentially, reveals a higher frequency of occurrence for triads X (Fig. 5.3a) and Z (Fig. 5.3c) than for triad Y (Fig. 5.3b). This is certainly the case at the end of the programme (darker area) if compared to the start of the programme (lighter area): over time, more practical judgements were integrated in reasoning through inferential relations. The third quadrant (bottom-left) indicates in all cases that judgements were not very often used in a practical way and seldom linked through compatibility relations. Particularly for triad X (Fig. 5.3a), the fourth quadrant (bottom-right) shows considerable theoretical use of judgements in compatibility relations. The results show a consistent pattern of frequency across the triads of how speakers relate theoretical and practical judgements to each other. This pattern is visible in Fig. 5.3a–c, which synthesise the findings for triads X, Y and Z, respectively. It becomes evident that, whenever social reasoning involved both theoretical and practical considerations, the theoretical judgements were much more predominant than the practical ones. The former were largely employed in inferential relations and, to a lesser extent, in compatibility relations (non-inferential). The latter, albeit less predominant, were virtually always used inferentially. Indeed, the practical judgements appeared to play a fully-fledged inferential role; they related almost exclusively through inferential relations, rather than simply adding complementary non-contradictory information. Perceptual judgements were seldom found (in the cases of triads X and Z) within the selected chains of reasoning. In sum, all judgements held predominantly inferential relations to each other.

5.3.2.3

Focus on Qualitative Patterns

A closer look into the chains of reasoning revealed mainly three distinctive qualitative patterns in terms of the relative use of compatibility and inferential relations. These patterns are presented in Fig. 5.4a–c, which do not correspond one-to-one to the triads. Each figure, moreover, contains an illustration of the data behind the pattern and, eventually, reveals how these data were coded. In the first pattern, there were only compatibility relations, thus the groups of judgements could not be called ‘chains of reasoning’ as no inferences are made. In the second pattern, the chains contain compatibility relations surrounded by inferential relations. The third pattern has the strongest inferential character, given the virtual absence of compatibility relations.

134

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Fig. 5.4 Pattern of relationships between judgements: (a) Compatibilities only, (b) Mixed inferential-compatibility, (c) Fully inferential

5.3 Results

135

Fig. 5.4 (continued)

5.3.2.4

Focus on Variation Over Time Within and Between Triads

Earlier in the results section, we described a pattern of frequencies for the use of theoretical and practical judgements in relation to each other. Figure 5.3a–c each show a comparison of frequencies at the end of the programme (darker triangular area) to the frequencies at the start of the programme (lighter triangular area). Although such a consistent pattern appeared to prevail over time (as the triangles’ orientation present little variation from one another), more practical judgements were also integrated in reasoning through inferential relations (given by the growth of the triangles in the second quadrant in two of the three cases). Furthermore, it seems that the relative relevance of compatibility relations diminished over time. Although the triads’ behaviour differed, in general we observe that the predominance of inferential relations grew, while compatibility relations stayed behind. In the preceding section, which focused on the qualitative patterns, we provided comparative quotations in the form of chains of reasoning (Fig. 5.4a–c),

136

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

thus zooming into the content of the conversations to illustrate the different predominance of compatibility and inferential relations. If we now consider how such chains are chronologically ordered, we have reasons to state that the predominance of compatibility relations diminished over time. Such decay in predominance of compatibility relations over time, however, was not uniform across the triads, i.e., the triads differed in the stages they went through. These stages ranged as follows: (1) whole pseudo-chains -i.e., formed by compatibility relations only- in the beginning of the programme, (2) chains containing compatibility relations surrounded by inferential relations, thus never forming whole chains on their own, (3) virtual absence of compatibility relations, i.e., no compatibility relations left by the end of the programme. This is schematised in Fig. 5.5.

5.3.3

Research Question 2

Here we address the question of what kind of inferential roles are played by analytically different kinds of judgements during exchanges between the students and their instructors. In other words, these findings regard the function of theoretical and practical judgements within inferences. This, as in the case of RQ1, involves a focus on: (a) patterns of occurrence within triads, (b) patterns of occurrence across triads, (c) variation over time within triads, and (d) variation over time across triads.

5.3.3.1

Analytical Distinction of the Inferential Roles

An inference (or argument) consists, basically, of antecedents and consequents. A single judgement (or claim) may act as consequent in one inference and as antecedent in another inference. Here, we consider the inferential role of judgements whenever they are used as consequents in an inference. Phase 1: Whole chains formed only by compatibility relations

Phase 2: Chains containing compatibility relations surrounded by inferential relations

Phase 3: Virtual absence of compatibility relations

Triad X goes through stages 1 & 2 Triad Y starts and stays in stage 2 Triad Z goes through stages 2 & 3

Fig. 5.5 Use of compatibility relations over time

5.3 Results

137

In general, both theoretical and practical judgements were used in justificatory and amplative ways (albeit in varying extents), while the critical role (less frequent than its justificatory and amplative counterparts) was primarily played by theoretical judgements. This synthesis is shown in Fig. 5.6.a-c. The following quotations illustrate how different inferential roles were played by different kinds of judgements. Example of a theoretical judgement playing a justificatory role (where d-ON represents a substance that can be recovered):

[S] you get hydrogen as by-product [theoretical] (antecedent) [S] and then you go further to the polishing section [theoretical] (antecedent) [S] because it still contains a little of d-ON [theoretical] [justificatory] Source: Chain 9, Obs X1 Example of a theoretical judgement playing an amplative role:

[S] water is polar and the other one is non-polar [theoretical] (antecedent) [S] so a layer will appear that separates the phases [theoretical] [amplative] Source: Chain 21, Obs Y1 Example of a practical judgement playing a justificatory role:

[M] last time they installed structured packing [thus replacing distillation plates] [M] as they wished to increase the efficiency

[theoretical] (antecedent) [practical]

[justificatory]

Source: Chain 21, Obs Y1 Example of a practical judgement playing an amplative role:

[S] if there is a leak, this instrument will detect it [practical] (antecedent) [S] and nitrogen will be sent to the cabin [practical] (antecedent) [S] so that oxygen is displaced [replaced by nitrogen] [practical] [amplative] and the risk of explosion reduced. Source: Chain 9, Obs X1 The following quotations illustrate how different kinds of judgements played a critical role.

138

a

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

The role of Theorecal judgements

The role of Praccal judgements

amplave role

jusficatory role

jusficatory role

crical role

crical role

X1 = Triad X, Start of programme

b

X4 = Triad X, End of programme

The role of Theorecal judgements

jusficatory role

amplave role

X1 = Triad X, Start of programme

c

X4 = Triad X, End of programme

The role of Praccal judgements

jusficatory role

amplave role

crical role

crical role

Y1 = Triad Y, Start of programme

amplave role

Y4 = Triad Y, End of programme

The role of Theorecal judgements

Y1 = Triad Y, Start of programme

Y4 = Triad Y, End of programme

The role of Praccal judgements

jusficatory role amplave role

jusficatory role amplave role crical role crical role

Z1 = Triad Z, Start of programme

Z4 = Triad Z, End of programme

Z1 = Triad Z, Start of programme

Z4 = Triad Z, End of programme

Fig. 5.6 Patterns of inferential roles of judgements: (a) Triad X, (b) Triad Y, (c) Triad Z

5.3 Results

139

Example of a perceptual judgement playing a critical role: [T] ‘cause the pressure will increase; imagine that it increases increases increases... [T] is it only when the rupture disc breaks that you know... ooh, the pressure was too high!? [T] is there anything before? Before the rupture disc breaks? [S] Before? [...] they probably have a manometer [to detect and warn, at least]

[perceptual] (antecedent) [perceptual] [critical] [non-judg]

[none]

[theoretical] [amplative]

Source: Chain 13, Obs X1 Example of a practical judgement playing a critical role (note that S is guessing, and T is not necessarily right): [T] why don’t they do that with steam? [instead of using an electric heater] [S] because it no longer... it’s not profitable enough... to put the steam at such a pressure... [T] profitable? it’d rather be a matter of safety... probably it can’t be done safely at such extreme high pressures

[non-judg] (antecedent) [practical]

[justificatory]

[practical]

[critical]

Source: Chain 29, Obs Y1 Example of a theoretical judgement playing a critical role: [T] in that decantation vessel with a top layer and a [theoretical] (antecedent) bottom layer... there were two level meters, one for your bottom phase and one for your top phase [T] but [you said that] the vessel had to be [theoretical] [critical] completely filled... why [then] do you still need to measure the top level? [T] it means that the vessel [in reality] is not [theoretical] [amplative] completely filled Source: Chain 69, Obs Z4

140

5.3.3.2

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Focus on Patterns of Frequency

The following results essentially consist of patterns of use of theoretical and practical judgements along with the inferential roles they play in social reasoning. The three studied triads presented certain differences. Although some chains may suggest that theoretical judgements played primarily a justificatory role, whereas practical judgements played primarily an amplative role, this claim cannot be generalised (as evidenced by triad Y, which clearly revealed practical judgements being used for justification purposes). Furthermore, the triads differed in the extent to which their inferences included the critical role at all and, if they did, which kinds of judgements played such critical role. Indeed, while for triad Y it is true that practical judgements had the ability to reveal incompatibilities, for triads X and Z such a role was reserved to theoretical (and perceptual) judgements only. Figure 5.6a–c show the extent to which patterns of use were found. These figures show the frequency of occurrence of three inferential roles (amplative, justificatory and critical in each figure), for two kinds of judgements (theoretical and practical in different figures), for two points in time (start and end of the programme with a different colour in each figure) and for the three considered triads, respectively. Each figure represents a plane divided into three equal zones; one zone for each inferential role: The first third (upper-right) stands for the amplative role, the second third (upper-left) stands for the justificatory role and the last third (centre-down) stands for the critical role. Just as it is the case of Fig. 5.3a–c, Fig. 5.6a–c are the result of a qualitative-quantitative analysis. The frequency scales (i.e., arrowed axes) along which the vertices of the triangles are positioned, are not represented for the sake of simplicity. The imaginary areas formed by connecting the empty dots represent the start of the programme, while the areas formed by the filled dots represent the end. When contrasting the six representations composing Fig. 5.6a–c, it appears that the triads were comparable in several aspects (beyond the marked preponderance of theoretical judgements, as discussed before). Firstly, we consider the representations on the left side of the figure, indicating that the theoretical judgements played as much amplative as justificatory roles, and this pattern was maintained over time. There was less homogeneity when it comes to the theoretical judgements playing a critical role (for triad Y the critical role was virtually absent over the whole period, for triad X the critical role increases notably its predominance over time, whereas triad Z shows the opposite). Secondly, we focus on the representations on the right side of the figure. Only triad Z showed within-case consistency regarding the roles played by practical judgements; in this case, the pattern of inferential roles was stable (mainly amplative, little justificatory and not critical) although the frequencies decreased proportionally over time. In their turn, triads Y and X presented much more variation over time, but such variation did not seem to respond to a pattern. These findings confer certain unpredictability to practical judgements; at the most, we can suggest that the theoretical judgements could perform any inferential role and that the practical judgements most often played an amplative role.

5.3 Results

5.3.3.3

141

Focus on Qualitative Patterns

Just as in the case of RQ1, where we found qualitative patterns of relations between judgements (exemplified by Fig. 5.4a–c); regarding RQ2, we also found patterns of inferential roles. Indeed, a comparison of the various chains of reasoning revealed mainly two distinctive qualitative patterns in terms of the uniformity or plurality of inferential roles in single chains. These patterns are presented in Fig. 5.7a and b, respectively. In the first pattern, the chains were more uniform (or more unidimensional), meaning that mainly one inferential role appeared. In particular, we found chains that were uniformly amplative while virtually none that were uniformly justificatory. In the second pattern, contrarily, the chains were more plural (or more multidimensional), meaning that different kinds of inferential roles appeared. These chains integrated the justificatory and the amplative roles. In general, this latter justificatory-amplative pattern was more often found. The term ‘endothermic’ was first used in the conversation as a verbal representation, as if it were self-explanatory. This prompted another speaker to raise the question about the meaning of the representation, to assess understanding. Moreover, an implicit theoretical judgement seemed to be a missing link, before inferring the practical consequence. Such judgement could have been as follows: It means that the reaction consumes energy (e.g., in the form of heat), as the final products have a higher potential energy than the reagents. Here, the practical answer given by the student conveys the requested meaning only partially, while no further reasons were asked; the triad’s conversation did not evidence advanced mastery of the concept ‘endothermic’.

5.3.3.4

Focus on Variation Over Time Within and Between Triads

Regardless of which inferential role, in general, there seemed to be extended use of inferential roles already from the beginning, as shown in Fig. 5.3a-c. More particularly, most times when there was integration of kinds of judgements in a single chain, there was also diversified use of such judgements to justify, to amplify or (to a lesser extent) to criticise. As explained above, the justificatory-amplative pattern was more often found; this was true throughout the duration of the programme, meaning that there is no observable variation over time of the inferential roles pattern. In other senses, variations over time were observed but they were not regular across the triads. For example, a closer look at the justificatory and amplative roles by kind of judgement; this reveals that there was within-triad variation over time in terms of which inferential role was predominantly played by each kind of judgement; however, the between-triad comparison presents no regularity. Similarly, while we observed variations over time in terms of which kind of judgement was used to play a critical role, such variations were not consistent across the triads.

142

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Fig. 5.7 Patterns of inferential roles: (a) Uniformly amplative chain, (b) Justificatory-amplative chain

5.3 Results

143

Contrarily, regularity across the triads was observed regarding practical judgements. We could state that, for all triads, the critical role was virtually absent throughout the programme; this could be interpreted as an unexploited opportunity to analyse incompatibilities. Unlike the case of the regular increase over time we observed in the use of inferential relations (part of RQ1), the results of zooming into the use of inferential roles (part of RQ2) did not yield clear-cut generalisable variations. In other words, there seemed to be no pattern of variation in which inferential role each kind of judgement played in discourses (i.e., no observable increase of predominance of any inferential role for a given kind of judgement). In the discussion section, we elaborate on the implications these results, while Sect. 6.8.2 presents suggested guidelines for practitioners.

5.3.4

Overarching Case

We present an overarching case that exposes the qualitative richness of our data and the ILTP phenomenon in all its complexity. With this, we treat the phenomenon as a whole, and we somehow repair the former fragmentary approach, which was initially necessary for a fine-grained analysis. This case presents an exemplary illustration of how social reasoning about roughly the same topic varies over time within the same triad. Figure 5.8a and b present two chains of reasoning corresponding to the beginning (Fig. 5.8a) and end of a session (Fig. 5.8b), respectively. These chains are compared in terms of: (a) the presence of judgements used in either a theoretical or in a practical way, (b) whether those judgements were related inferentially or not, and (c) what kind of inferential roles those judgements played. The case concerns a leak detection scenario. More particularly, the scenario is about the risk of leakage of a heat exchanger resulting in accidental release of volatile (and thus highly flammable) hydrocarbons. The first chain is interesting as shows how none of the actors could initially explain the application of a gas detector given the particular process conditions, and how their social reasoning eventually made the triad understand. The first chain was centred on the detection instrument (in relation to physical properties and process conditions); it contained non-judgements and theoretically used judgements that played amplative and justificatory roles. Unlike the first chain, the second one abandoned the mere detection problem and moved into a safety protection measure, which is an encompassing concept. This second chain contained theoretically and practically used judgements that were integrated (i.e., related to each other inferentially) through their amplative and justificatory roles. The qualitative variation revealed by the comparison of both chains of reasoning suggested how the integrative learning process developed. Indeed, we were faced with a progressive incorporation of practical judgements and a progressive incorporation of new (and more encompassing) concepts. This is indicative of furtherreaching understanding over time or, in other terms, indicative of growing mastery.

144

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Fig. 5.8 (a) Chain of reasoning in the beginning of a session, (b) Chain of reasoning at the end of a session

5.4 Conclusion

145

Beyond the particular research questions, our findings also include more general observations of the way in which the conversations develop during the triads’ exchanges. There were differences between triads. In some cases, the tutor tended to ask questions with a narrow goal and a known answer; here the student needed to deliver ‘the right answer’. However, most of the times, the interrogation appeared to be challenging (not only for the student, but for the entire triad). Often, the tutor wondered aloud about the reasons and implications of particular designs and practices, while showing a genuine interest and curiosity. Concerning particular designs, for example, the following were questioned: the shape of a reaction vessel, the position of a temperature sensor in a furnace, the return of a pipe, and the preference for structured packing rather than plates in a particular column. Concerning particular practices, for example, the next were questioned: the frequency of field controls, the amount of catalyst dosing, or the automatic/manual actions following an alarm due to a process upset. In so doing, the tutor engageed both the mentor and the student in a discursive exchange and social reasoning. This put the triad members at nearly the same level, and none of them seemed to feel fully at ease in such a situation. The tutor had to share their authority with the mentor, as they admitted some lack of basic/advanced understanding. The mentor had to share their authority with the tutor, as they admitted knowing several things by experience/acquaintance though not being able to justify them. The student could not simply score by giving a straightforward answer to a question and had to play the game (the GoGAR) with less resources than their interlocutors, while still grasping the content at stake and while being assessed. In other words, the members could not fully rely on prior knowledge; rather they brought their body of knowledge and their capacity to reason into the situation, and together they searched for logical connections between theoretical and practical judgements on the spot.

5.4

Conclusion

This chapter presented a theory-driven investigation, in which we took an inferentialist non-dualistic position; this position acted as a perspective on ‘theory and practice’, as a theoretical framework for the conceptualisation of ‘integrative learning’, and as the basis for our research design (including the operationalisation into observable units). The longitudinal investigation proceeded according to a mixed-methods design, in the context of alternating school-based and work-based learning in the field of chemical processing technology (CPT). The primary aim of this study was to better understand the integrative learning process, i.e., to describe the course of the integrative learning process over time. In the introductory section, we explained the non-dualistic view on theory and practice, its justification, and implications, followed by a presentation of the inferentialist theory, along with Normative Pragmatism. Subsequently, we elaborated on some of the implications of adopting an inferentialist approach in the light of our research purpose and context. We formulated our central question as follows: How can the

146

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

process of integrative learning of theory and practice be understood from an inferentialist, non-dualistic perspective? More specifically, our research question read: How are theoretical and practical judgements brought together in discursive reasoning? Based on our operationalisation of the inferentialist theory, we concretised our aim into a quest for patterns of responsiveness (i.e., at the level of chains of reasoning), as well as any variation of such patterns over a certain period. The empirical investigation focused on discursive exchanges within a number of student-tutor-mentor triads. The answer to the broad research question was built in consideration of three aspects. First, the kind of relations between sentences employed (i.e., inferential, compatibility, incompatibility). Second, the inferential role of the judgements (i.e., justificatory, amplative or critical). And finally, the comparison of patterns of responsiveness over the course of the learning programme, with a focus on variation of the use of judgements in reasoning over the course of time. It must be reiterated that the results of this study, in line with the theoretical framework adopted, do not pertain to the learning of the individual students but, instead, to the triads these students belong to. At this point, we provide our overarching conclusion in relation to the central question in terms of the actors’ responsiveness. The process of integrative learning of theory and practice in an alternating school-based and work-based learning environment can be seen, in accordance with the theoretical framework we adopted, as a collaborative pursuit of increasing mastery of concepts, thus as increasing responsiveness to theoretical and practical reasons. Ideally, this integration process is not run for the sake of an individual student alone, but also for the sake of a triad composed of a student, their school instructor, and their workplace instructor; the process is intended to result in a common web of reasons that is more branched and more cogent by the end of the learning programme than at the beginning. This learning programme relies significantly on social reasoning within the triad. In this social reasoning, the triad members engage in discursive exchanges of theoretical and practical judgements and, to a lesser extent, perceptual judgements as well as non-judgements. These judgements are assertions or claims that connect to each other either inferentially or non-inferentially. In the former case, the judgements play different inferential roles, i.e., justificatory, amplative or critical. In the latter case, the judgements hold mere compatibility or incompatibility relations with each other. This whole process is monitored by the triad members themselves, as it is embedded in a normative context where each participant commits to their claims (and to the implications of such claims), while building and maintaining their own and others’ attribution to make claims. Based on these inferentialist and normative pragmatist ideas and terminology, we reformulated our primary purpose and set out to better understand such an integrative learning process in terms of patterned use of theoretical and practical judgements, their relations with each other, and their inferential roles; this includes cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of those patterns of use both between and within triads. The results of our investigation reveal that the integrative learning

5.5 Discussion

147

process presents several natural features that are present from the outset and remain stable over time, as well as variable features whose variation could be attributed to the learning programme. Taking our findings into account, the integration of theory and practice can be regarded as a process of progressive social reasoning in which theoretical and practical judgements co-construct chains of reasoning around concepts by quasisimultaneously advancing justifications, implications and, to a lesser extent, critiques. In short, although much theory-practice integration occurs naturally, over the period of the learning programme there is a positive variation in the students and instructors’ joint responsiveness to theoretical and practical reasons. More particularly, there is a progressive incorporation of practical judgements and a progressive incorporation of new (and more encompassing) concepts. In all, this is equivalent to claiming that integrated learning is taking place and that it results in growing mastery of concepts. The analysis was based on our operationalisation of the inferentialist framework; the findings emerged by looking at the data through the inferentialist lens, without any intention to confirm a priori hypotheses. The analytical procedure allowed us to ‘see’ how judgements become integrated through reasoning (i.e., to describe how the integration and the integrative learning proceed). These findings resonate with how we theorise ‘learning’; i.e., using (a) observed differences in the extent of integration over time (b) Brandom’s conceptualisation of what it means to ‘understand’. We conclude that the inferentialist lens used in this work is conducive to understanding the ILTP, and that it is appropriate to conceive integrative learning in terms of of mastery of concepts and growing responsiveness to reasons. In the following section, we elaborate on the present overarching conclusion, through the interpretation of our findings, while we propose plausible explanations and implications.

5.5

Discussion

From an epistemological perspective, as we elaborated in Chap. 2, the notion of integration of theory and practice ushers in a movement away from dichotomous thinking about these kinds of knowledge (and thus towards a resolution of the theory-practice duality). Indeed, one important conclusion (from reviews on the pedagogical implications of various conceptions of professional knowledge) is that the position that each rationale takes on the integration of theoretical and practical knowing are not equally conducive to resolving the theory-practice duality. To this end, Brandom’s idea of ‘Inferentialism’ (1994) has been proposed as a major contribution (Guile, 2006, 2010), for allowing us to maintain the distinction without incurring in dichotomous thinking. This proposition (which builds on Vygotsky, McDowell and Brandom’s work) implies that our interpretation of new concepts is best accomplished by the social practice of inference: the ‘game of giving and asking for reasons’ (Guile, 2006, 2010).

148

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Other researchers have also appealed to inferentialist ideas, albeit as a part of a broader theoretical framework. This is the case for prior research on the contextualisation of vocational knowledge (Heusdens et al., 2016), as well as for continued work on the characterisation of students’ vocational knowledge (Heusdens et al., 2018). Despite major differences between these pieces of research and ours (in terms of focus, underlying purpose and methodology), we share with Heusdens and colleagues the same commitment to avoid simplistic theory-practice dichotomies. This section further deals with the interpretation of our findings and consideration of their potential implications. Subsequently, we discuss the limitations of this study as well as some opportunities for further research. Next, we provide several general guidelines for practitioners. Finally, we close this section with a concluding reflection about the primary and secondary aims of this study.

5.5.1

Interpretation

Our findings related to the sub-question RQ1 reveal that most of the time, judgements hold an inferential relation to each other. Regardless of whether these judgements are themselves the products of inferences, the theoretical and the practical appear often integrated (albeit in longer or shorter chains of reasoning). In fewer cases, the relations between judgements are merely non-inferential. Such a consistent pattern appears to remain stable over time, as it presents little qualitative variation from the start to the end of the programme. It follows that theory and practice appear to be, in part, naturally integrated in discursive reasoning, as even newly formed groups of speakers (without a strongly consolidated web of reasons) succeed in building chains of reasoning that are constituted from theoretical and practical judgements. This ability for integrated social reasoning seems to stabilise over time. This also means that those integrated judgements are not merely compatible, but rather they relate to each other inferentially. It is also the case that more practical judgements are integrated in reasoning through inferential relations. This (moderate) increase in the predominance of practical judgements to build inferences is indicative of how the process of integrative learning develops in this context and is indicative of growing responsiveness. Understanding what kind of inferences are being made in each chain of reasoning is the core of sub-question RQ2. Beyond any quantitative comparison, both theoretical and practical judgements appear to have a justificatory power (i.e., to claim what a given proposition logically follows from) as well as an amplative power (i.e., to claim what logically follows from a given proposition). However, the critical role (e.g., pointing to an incompatibility for a reason) appears to be much less predominant if compared to the other inferential roles. Furthermore, most of the times when there is integration of theoretical and practical judgements in a single chain, there are also different inferential roles at play, i.e., social reasoning is simultaneously justificatory, amplative and (to a lesser extent) critical. Of the two main patterns found,

5.5 Discussion

149

the justificatory-amplative one appears more often than its uniformly amplative counterpart. Particularly from the results concerning multiplicity of roles in single chains of reasoning, we propose that webs of reason can benefit from both theoretical and practical judgements to grow in complexity in any direction around concepts. Moreover, the distinctive versatility of theoretical judgements to play all inferential roles confers on these judgements a key position in the construction of webs of reasoning, and thus a key position in growing responsiveness. This importance of theoretical judgements does not necessarily imply that they are, more than practical judgements can be, responsible for the structure of chains of reasoning; let us remember that practical judgements are used inferentially too. The theoretical judgements appear to be the most versatile, as they play all inferential roles (albeit mainly the amplative and the justificatory ones); this pattern is maintained over time. Unlike the theoretical judgements, which appear to play multiple inferential roles, the practical judgements present a tendency to play primarily an amplative role, and this tendency becomes more frequent over time (in some cases). From such tendency to use practical judgements in inferential roles, we suggest that the intentions to act and purposes themselves are seen as the corollary of a preceding reason (or chain of reasons). Putting it inversely, speakers seek to explain why a practical action or purpose is necessary or useful, rather than simply accepting it. This is equivalent to ‘acting for a reason’ and denotes people’s responsiveness. The simultaneous use of judgements to play different inferential roles supports our observation that social reasoning can be quite a challenging and even overwhelming activity; as such, the process of integration needs to be facilitated. We suggest that the successful inferential integration of theoretical and practical judgements depends on the quality and quantity of participation of the speakers, on the time available and on the extent of the scope. In the guidelines section, we suggest which areas are more likely to require such facilitation. Beyond the general observation that the critical role is less frequent than its justificatory and amplative counterparts, the triads present differences in the extent to which their inferences include critical roles at all. The tendency to engage in critical reasoning may be dependent, at least partially, on the properties of the triad (e.g., the group dynamics). In general, a poor engagement in critical discourse may reflect a general poor engagement in social reasoning, i.e., responsiveness not functioning at its full capacity. Here speakers accept beliefs and non-inferential claims, thus constructing a weak web of reasons or simply failing to construct it. Moreover, speakers appeal more often to theory than to practice when they engage in critical reasoning. The critical role is primarily played by theoretical judgements, whereas practical judgements that play a critical role are virtually absent throughout the programme. Finally, the triads differ in which kind of judgements play a critical role, e.g., theoretical judgements with a critical role ranging from virtually absent, to increasingly predominant over time, and to showing decaying predominance over time. Therefore, it is not possible to make claims about one or the other kind of judgement predominantly playing a critical role over time or not. The finding that theory plays much more of a critical role than practice suggests that

150

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

theory is often considered to carry more truth (i.e., to have more authority); thus, it is also considered more appropriate as ground to contradict a previous claim. Concurrently, this implies that the power of practice to refute a given claim is left largely unexploited. In Sect. 5.4, we concluded that the progressive incorporation of practical judgements and of more encompassing concepts to the students and instructors’ exchanges (i.e., to their space of reasons), can be seen as an indication that integrated learning is taking place, along with a growing mastery of concepts. Admittedly, one may argue that the same conclusion is likely in other educational activities, even beyond T-VET. However, our conclusion has particular relevance for T-VET, as the questions about integration of theory and practice are much more prominent in the T-VET literature than in other educational areas (see Chap. 1). Finally, the generalisability of our conclusions beyond T-VET resonates with Billett’s idea that “all education should be vocational” (2009).

5.5.2

Limitations

A first limitation to mention relates to the empirical natural setting. We assumed that the context of investigation (i.e., the formative-evaluative sessions) would be particularly conducive to learning (e.g., supportive instructional conditions are met). However, concepts were hardly revised and, instead, each new session broadened the scope of the content instead of deepening it. This resulted in reduced opportunities to observe growing responsiveness, i.e., growing mastery of a concept. Continuing research with a focus on social reasoning could benefit from a more controlled empirical setting. Another limitation related to the empirical context pertains to the connection between the setting and the results or, in other words, the affordances of the setting to allow us to grasp the whole phenomenon under study. For example, the perceptual judgements were seldom found within the selected chains of reasoning. We suggest that this finding results from a limitation of our study regarding the setting in which the data could be audio-recorded, i.e., the control room. The observations that took place during the field tours were richer in perceptual judgements; unfortunately, these could not be audio-recorded, so the corresponding data were only used for general contextual information and not for detailed analysis. Therefore, perceptual judgements were, indeed, present in favourable occasions, but they just escaped our data collection capacity. The perceptual judgements are underrepresented in our data. Continuing research interested in including perceptual judgements in the question about integration may benefit from technological solutions that allow the recording of speech in the field without compromising safety. A time aspect imposing limitations refers to the idea of ‘over time’ and beyond. We had expected that stronger variations in responsiveness would be observable during the data collection period (longitudinal approach), which was equivalent to the entire duration of the CPT programme. However, stronger variations in

5.5 Discussion

151

responsiveness may only appear in the longer run (provided that new conversations build on the previous ones by revisiting and deepening the understanding of concepts, as mentioned before). Besides, we do not assume that the observed variations in responsiveness will hold as a sustained change during the further professional life. Therefore, continuing research interested in projecting the present operationalisation of the inferentialist framework onto the study of expertise development will benefit from a different longitudinal design (e.g., a longer run data collection or a pool of participants consisting of professionals with different levels of expertise). Finally, we could not make a differentiation between epistemic beliefs that result from adopting others’ inferences, speakers’ own theoretical judgements formed prior to the conversations, and theoretical judgements resulting from inferences made on the spot. Although in many opportunities there were hints to make such differentiation, perhaps too much interpretation was required during coding in other opportunities. Therefore, all these instances were coded as theoretical judgements. A closer look into the distinction could reveal deeper insight into how the game of giving and asking for reasons (GoGAR) proceeds. Continuing research interested in such distinction will benefit from a deeper philosophical focus in the area of epistemology and, in particular, in the formation of epistemic beliefs. For this, a controlled empirical setting (rather than a natural setting) and a narrow scope (i.e., a limited web of reasons) are expected to be most appropriate.

5.5.3

Implications for Practice

Despite the limitations, the present study allows us to suggest a number of general guidelines for practitioners. Often, social reasoning reveals itself simultaneously as justificatory, amplative and critical, rather than it following single lines of thought. In certain aspects, the process of integration appears as a challenging and even overwhelming activity whose development needs to be facilitated. Based on our findings, we suggest that the successful inferential integration of theoretical and practical judgements, in general, depends on (a) the quality and quantity of participation of the speakers, and (b) on aspects of instructional design (such as content of the programme in terms of its extent, depth and sequencing). In this line, we propose several actions. To encourage engagement and participation, we suggest that the hierarchical distinction of the triad members is disrupted. On the one hand, concerning the position of the student, it may be important to create the perception that the goal is to strengthen the triad’s web of reasons rather than evaluating the student. On the other hand, concerning the position of the instructors, it may be helpful to ensure that the differences in their roles are perceived as the groups’ richness and that these are used constructively. The need for such measures stems, e.g., from the quite extensive use of compatibility relations observed, as well as the scarce predominance of judgements that play a critical inferential role. These findings may indicate that the normative aspects of the discourse are subordinated (i.e., the speakers tend to simply

152

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

accept each other’s statements). If the speakers are to exercise the deliberate identification of compatibilities and incompatibilities, they need to participate more fully in the discursive reasoning, so to become more advanced GoGAR players. We consider that the amount of content relative to the time available is a critical factor in the instructional design. It has been observed that the contents discussed during the formative-evaluative sessions often do not closely build on previously discussed content; rather, each session mainly attempts to address new topics, thus allowing little room for growing mastery of a more reduced scope. In order to exploit discursive reasoning more fully, more focus may be required on a smaller number of concepts; alternatively, more time could be allocated to revisit previously discussed content. To some extent, the integrative learning appears as a natural phenomenon which is likely to occur even without the intervention of the particular learning programme. We propose that it is important to acknowledge which aspects of the ILTP belong to this category in order to nourish them, rather than taking them for granted. Among the features that need to be cherished, we propose to focus on: the capacity of practice to contribute to responsiveness (i.e., its capacity to add value to increasingly branched webs of reasons), the versatility of theoretical judgements to play (as no other) all kinds of inferential roles, and the tendency of practical judgements to play an amplative role by which speakers seek to explain why a practical action or purpose is necessary or useful (rather than simply accepting that it has to be done and adopting a mechanistic behaviour).

5.5.4

Implications for Further Research

Our operationalisation of the inferentialist framework is available for educational research on integration in other instructional contexts or research with additional focuses of interest, such as: (a) the integration of judgement and intervention, (b) the relationship between representation and reasoning, (c) truth and the formation of epistemic beliefs, and (d) expertise development. These points build on the present investigation and constitute relevant opportunities for future research. For some of these purposes, this operationalisation may require further theoretical extension.

5.5.5

Concluding Reflection

As stated in the introduction to this chapter, we set out to investigate the integration of theory and practice, and to conceptualise integrative learning with the purpose of contributing to resolving an omission problem and, in so doing, to provide new grounds for further advancement of integrative pedagogical approaches. This means that our primary purpose has been to make a pedagogical contribution that potentially leads to concrete recommendations for practitioners (i.e., instructional designers and instructors).

5.6 End Notes

153

We addressed this issue with the conviction that a non-dualistic perspective on theory and practice would be conducive to our ends. We found such perspective in Robert Brandom’s (1994, 2000) inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories, and presented a rationale for adopting these views as our methodological framework. Consistently, we used the inferentialist ideas not only as a methodological framework, but also as an analytical framework. Indeed, we advanced an operationalisation that allowed us to translate such an epistemological, semantic and pragmatist scene into specific, observable terms. We put to use this operationalisation in all further stages of our investigation. Therefore, we can now point to the philosophical relevance of our study. This implies that our secondary purpose has been to test whether the study of theory-practice integration can effectively be achieved using our operationalisation of Brandom’s theories. We advocate that our research results and methods presented in this book, elucidate the appropriateness of the framework employed. Therefore, we wish to advance this framework as a contribution to the educational scientific community. Finally, the novelty of the present study resides in this operationalisation; to the best of our knowledge, prior research has appealed to Inferentialism as a reflection tool only, while we have made further steps to put it to use as a research tool.

5.6

End Notes

5.6.1

Transcription Rules

The following transcription rules consist of adapted transcription conventions for conversation analysis (Clift, 2016, pp. 53–63). Figure 5.9 shows an example of transcription corresponding to the test run. Preliminaries (a) Font: Courier or Courier New (b) Use line numbers for each line (not each turn). Non-linguistic actions included. 1 ((ringing)) 2 Speaker1: hello (c) Use pseudonyms (if transcriptions will be shared). (d) Arrows beside speaker pseudonyms: line of analytic focus. ! (e) Data source given above the transcript. Short excerpts where data are not captured by recording: indicate as field note. FN (f) Use normalised orthography. Only use modified orthography if this has an obvious significance for this particular investigation.

154

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Fig. 5.9 Example of a transcription corresponding to the test run

Temporal and sequential relationships. (a) Overlapping of simultaneous talk: no marking. (b) Turn transition: no marking. (c) Silence: numbers in parentheses, represented in second. Accuracy: second. Pause transcribed on a separate line when the speaker has come to a point at which the talk is possibly complete.

9 Speaker1: I forgot my notes. 10 (1) 11 Speaker1: Sorry, I can’t tell you. (d) Micropause (fraction of a second) often creating expectation for what is next (e.g., in enumerations, where classic punctuation would use suspensive points). (.) you pass by the first sign (.) you turn left (.)

5.6 End Notes

155

Aspects of speech delivery. (a) Punctuation marks are not used in their usual sense to mark aspects of grammar. They are used to indicate intonation contours. . ? , ¿ :

Period: falling intonation contour, not necessarily at the end of the sentence. Question mark: rising intonation, not necessarily a question. Comma: continuing intonation, not necessarily a clause boundary. Upside-down question mark: low rise Colons: prolongation or stretching of the preceding sound. E.g., uh::

(b) Hyphen after a word or part of word: cut-off or self-interruption, often with a glottal stop. Used to implement a self-repair. because the singl- uh:: the double room is more comfortable (c) Underlining: stress or emphasis, either by increased loudness or by higher pitch. Capital letters: particularly increased loudness relative to surrounding talk. anyway we’ll return to it in April (d) Degree sign: the following talk is markedly quiet or soft. Two degree signs: the talk between them is softer than the talk around it. alright. (e) Up and down arrows: rise or fall in pitch. They may mark a whole shift of the pitch register. "# 16 Speaker1: but I wonder (.) "wat does it actually mean? 17 Speaker2: it means it’s running #I believe (f) Combination of > and < indicates that the talk between them is compressed or rushed. Combination of < and > indicates a markedly slowed of drawn out stretch of talk. >never mind< let’s skip that for the moment would you plea:se < finish your "talk> (g) Auditorily recognisable smiling voice or laughter. ££ £it’s the first time you explain it so clearly ££ Other markings. (a) Double parentheses: transcriber’s description of events or aspects of voice quality. ((sniff)) ((sigh)) ((cough))((constricted))

156

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

(b) All or part of an utterance in parentheses or speaker identification in parentheses: uncertainty on the transcriber’s part. Alternative hearings are used when it is not possible to distinguish between them. Empty parentheses are used when no hearing is possible of what was being said. 10 Speaker1: Cut that (up)/(out) 11 ()

5.6.2

Analysis Procedure

1. First data selection according to study focus. Decide what to transcribe while not losing the contextual embedding. (a) Inclusion criteria: subject matter, manufacturing process (all aspects). (b) Exclusion criteria: discussions about learning strategies, motivation and affective aspects, summative evaluation, small talk. 2. Transcription (a) Do not include any detail about the sound of speech unless this appears necessary to illustrate one’s point. (b) Indicate intonation and its changes: word stressed, hesitation, pauses, etc. (c) Refer to transcription rules. 3. Preparation using qualitative analysis software (a) Import sources. (b) Group sources according to triads into separate case nodes. (c) Classify sources according to the observation number (time stamp). 4. While coding: (a) Keep record of emergent situational cues that assist the interpretation, annotations and memos. (b) Apply the selected chunking: divide into sentences and events. (c) Apply the principle of charity to treat speakers as intelligent and to treat arguments as being non-deductive, unless obviously otherwise intended. (d) Keep regular track of project phases, e.g., project maps, project summary reports. 5. First-step coding (contextualised) (a) Use a priori nodes tree for deductive coding: categorise kinds of judgements. (b) Include inductive coding of emergent insights. (c) Make annotations and write memos.

References

157

6. Qualitative queries. Configuration and evaluation of the results. (a) Coding queries. (b) Matrix queries. (c) Collect exemplary quotes. 7. Second-step coding (contextualised) (a) In a spreadsheet, order all coded fragments into judgements or propositions. (b) Revise the first coding that categorises the kinds of judgements. (c) Use a priori nodes for deductive coding: categorise relations and inferential roles. (d) Apply the selected chunking: group the propositions according to episodes and into chains of reasoning. 8. Second data selection according to study focus. Select the chains of reasoning containing both theoretical and practical judgements. (a) Conditional formatting. (b) Filters. 9. Quantitative queries configuration (de-contextualised) (a) Pivot tables. (b) Filters and slicers. 10. Evaluation of the results (a) Adapt the pivot tables in turn for each lower-level research question. (b) Count total and relative frequencies. (c) Perform visual inspections with different kinds of visualisations.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Sage Publications, Inc. Bakker, A., & Akkerman, S. F. (2014). A boundary-crossing approach to support students’ integration of statistical and work-related knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 223–237. Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 5–26. Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590–617. Billett, S. (2009). Personal epistemologies, work and learning. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.001 Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Cambridge. Harvard University Press. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. An introduction to Inferentialism. Harvard University Press. Causton, E. (2019). Bringing Inferentialism to science education. Science & Education, 1–19. Clift, R. (2016). 2016. Cambridge University Press.

158

5 The ILTP Through the Inferentialist Lens

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge. Dare, T. & Girard, P. (2015). Logical and critical thinking. The University of Auckland. Future Learn. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking. Accessed on September 28, 2015. Derry, J. (2016). Inferentialism and education. In Philosophy of education Society of Great Britain Annual Conference (pp. 1–3). Guile, D. (2006). Learning across contexts. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 251–268. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy (Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Heusdens, W. T., Bakker, A., Baartman, L. K. J., & De Bruijn, E. (2016). Contextualising vocational knowledge: A theoretical framework and illustrations from culinary education. Vocations and Learning, 9(2), 151–165. Heusdens, W. T., Baartman, L. K., & de Bruijn, E. (2018). Knowing everything from soup to dessert: An exploratory study to describe what characterises students’ vocational knowledge. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 70(3), 435–454. Hiim, H. (2017). Ensuring curriculum relevance in vocational education and training: Epistemological perspectives in a curriculum research project. International journal for research in vocational education and training, 4(1), 1–19. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishing. Loeffler, R. (2018). Brandom. Key contemporary thinkers. Polity Press. Morrison, R. T., & Boyd, R. N (1998). Química Orgánica. [Organic Chemistry]. Méjico: Pearson. Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory-based methodology to guide computer system design. Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 conference on human-computer interaction, 9–13 Jul 2001, Tokyo, Japan. Säljö, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029030 Schaap, H., Baartman, L., & de Bruijn, E. (2012). Students’ learning processes during school-based learning and workplace learning in vocational education: A review. Vocations and Learning, 5(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9069-2 Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind, in minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. I, H. Feigl & M. Scriven (eds.), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1956: 253–329. Taylor, S. D., Noorloos, R., & Bakker, A. (2017). Mastering as an inferentialist alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 769–784. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.12.001 Winch, C. (2010). Dimensions of expertise: A conceptual exploration of vocational knowledge. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Discussion

6.1

Introduction

At the beginning of this book, we highlighted the acknowledged relevance of learning theory and practice in an integrative way as a means of making learning more insightful. It was explained that the mastery of integrated knowledge has plausible implications beyond the initial learning context, i.e., in further professional life. Concurrently, we also pointed at the omission from educational research of a robust theoretical basis to underpin new pedagogical advancements concerned with integration. Indeed, insights into the very concept of integration and the process of integration seem to have been omitted or at least not made explicit. We proposed that the further development of integrative pedagogy models may be hampered by this limited understanding of the concept and the process of theory-practice integration. This work represents an effort to demystify the concept of integrative learning by focusing on theory and practice as core objects of such integration. Consistently, we raised the central question: What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) and how does it develop? In this work, the idea of the development of the integrative learning process refers to variations in responsiveness to theoretical and practical reasons over time. In this chapter, first, we recall what the topic, focus, purpose, significance, methods, and context of this book are, in order to summarise the main conclusions of the four studies. These conclusions arise from what we learnt from the study of the literature and from the empirical investigations. Additionally, we reflect on the overall results of the book in the light of the reviewed literature, i.e., several sensitising concepts and elements of the theoretical framework presented in Chaps. 1 and 2 are revisited in order to discuss how the claims relate to existing knowledge. We continue with a reflection on how these studies (as presented in Chaps. 2, 3, 4 and 5) inform each other, by attending to the temporal aspect of their development. Next, we include a reflection on how the book can be positioned in a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7_6

159

160

6 Conclusion and Discussion

broader educational research field in terms of the particular perspectives, disciplines and methods involved. Subsequently, the limitations of this work are acknowledged (in the light of new insights), alongside proposals for how continuing research could tackle them. Moreover, we present a discussion of emergent opportunities for future research that is concerned with the various aspects of integrative learning. Finally, we present the plausible implications of the findings from this book for instruction and educational research. To close the chapter, we propose a brief and final reflection.

6.2

Review of the Main Conclusions and Discussions

In the introduction to this book the relevance of the theory-practice integration and the need to better understand the phenomenon of integrative learning (e.g., Barber, 2012; Tynjälä et al., 2003; Winch, 2010), as it develops in a particular instructional context within technical vocational education and training (T-VET) was pointed out. We advocated that generating such new understanding is key, if we are to provide more robust underpinning for the further advancement of integrative pedagogy models and instructional designs. These models and designs need to cope with the challenges posed by modern society to education and professional development (Hiim, 2017), such as growing technological complexity, changes in work practices and shifts in professional roles. Consistently, we raised the central question: What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) and how does it develop? This work can be positioned in various ways. Firstly, in terms of the TVET field of research and according to the TVET research framework, it fits into the areas of ‘competence and expertise’ and ‘learning and teaching’ (Rauner et al., 2008). Such research framework provides a comprehensive overview of related research areas and sub-areas that contribute to generating fundamental, practice-oriented, and policy-oriented knowledge in the various action layers (i.e., micro, meso, exo and macro). By positioning our work in this framework, those aspects of the theorypractice integration that are addressed and those that are not, are made explicit. Secondly, in terms of research paradigms, this book is situated in the Educational Theory and Philosophy strand because it provides the foundation for contributing to educational theory development (be it with a focus on pedagogy and learning) and adds to the discussion of educational concepts and purposes. Finally, in terms of disciplines, as noted in the introduction, this work is multidisciplinary; it blends philosophical epistemological considerations (e.g., generation and validation of integrated professional knowledge) with considerations from the cognitive psychological sciences (e.g., perception, reasoning, linguistic articulation, and exchange). In particular, the cognitive lens emphasises reasoning as a distinctive human capacity (Brandom, 1995, 2000) that contains a key to integration. Such a multidisciplinary approach is one of the strengths of this work.

6.2 Review of the Main Conclusions and Discussions

161

Throughout this book, there has been a focus on the integrative learning of theory and practice in a variety of ways. We explored the meaning of theory-practice integration in the context of chemical processing technology (CPT), we conceptualised the ILTP construct in terms of process and output aspects, and we described how this integration appears to progress through an inferentialist lens. In the initial exploration and conceptualisation (which proceeded according to a grounded theory approach), we gave a voice to the micro-level actors to grasp what ILTP means to them. This understanding, along with the findings from the literature review, informed the choice to further this project in the light of the inferentialist theory. We positioned our final investigation in a non-dualistic framework (e.g., Brandom, 1995, 2000; Guile, 2006, 2010; Loeffler, 2018) from which we were able to advance a description of the integration phenomenon. The inferentialist lens (Brandom, 1994, 2000), however, may not be the only perspective that is conducive to reconciling theory and practice. Yet this perspective is germane to a founded description of how the integration develops (Chap. 5), provides new grounds for pedagogical advancements in T-VET (Derry, 2016), and promises to originate a shift in our understanding on what learning is about through theory developments that build on the ‘mastery metaphor’ for learning (Taylor et al., 2017). Such mastery metaphor synthesises several implications of the inferentialist ideas for learning and education, while offering an alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning (Taylor et al., 2017). It is generally expected that the particular view of professional or vocational knowledge has implications for educational theory, instructional design, pedagogy, and educational research (Bakker & Derry, 2011; Bakker & Hußmann, 2017; Causton, 2019; Derry, 2017; Hußmann et al., 2018). Three major methodological choices were made. The first one pertains to the adoption of the inferentialist lens (Brandom, 1994, 2000). Such positioning appears to be crucial, as it is expected to have implications for curriculum design (Bakker & Derry, 2011; Causton, 2019; Derry, 2017), on perceptions of curriculum relevance (Hiim, 2017), on actual educational practice (e.g., Bakker & Hußmann, 2017; Hußmann et al., 2018), and on research. The second methodological choice concerns the initial grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Glaser, 2012) which is followed by a theory-driven approach as previously explained. The third methodological choice relates to the context selected for the investigations. Beyond being convenient for our research purposes, we believe that the CPT context has enriched the present work for being exemplary in terms of integrative learning. In this context, we conducted three empirical studies whose main purposes, findings and outputs are synthesised in the following paragraphs, along with a synthesis of our first (theoretical) study. The following conclusions represent the knowledge generated in response to the research questions that guided this work. Therefore, the present section is structured into five topics that reflect the research questions of the individual studies, as follows: what we know about the theory-practice integration in terms of professional knowledge (Chap. 2), key actors’ conceptions of theoretical and practical knowledge (Chap. 3, first research question), key actors’ views on the relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge (Chap. 3, second research question), process and

162

6 Conclusion and Discussion

outcome aspects of the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) in T-VET (Chap. 4), and bringing theoretical and practical judgements together in discursive reasoning (Chap. 5). Alongside the conclusions, corresponding discussions are offered in consideration of the sensitising concepts and theoretical framework. This section resumes with a final discussion of all the studies together; this is guided by the overarching question in this book about unravelling the ILTP (i.e., its exploration, conceptualisation, and description), i.e., What constitutes the integrative learning of theory and practice and how does it develop?

6.2.1

What We Now Know About the Theory-Practice Integration

In Chap. 2 we sought to find out what was already known about the theory-practice integration, to consolidate a knowledge gap identification and to shape the justification for the overall book. While aiming to review existing theoretical and empirical literature on theory-practice integration, we found that an explanandum for the ‘integration of theory and practice’ was virtually absent (Barber, 2012) and that a major epistemological disagreement (Hiim, 2017) still prevailed about the objects of integration. In Chap. 2 we provided an insight into the epistemological roots of professional knowledge (Guile, 2006, 2010; Hiim, 2017) that includes perspectives on theory and practice, and that we consider as an output of the integration process. Our findings indicated that, while several rationales on ‘vocational or professional knowledge’ coexist, it is necessary to understand them and to overtly adopt one, as the very goal of vocational education and training appears to depend on the rationale considered. Indeed, adopting a particular view on professional or vocational knowledge is expected to have implications on educational theory, instructional design, pedagogy, and educational research (Bakker & Derry, 2011; Bakker & Hußmann, 2017; Causton, 2019; Derry, 2017; Hußmann et al., 2018). In other words, if we are to understand how students learn theory and practice in an integrative way, the perspective we adopt matters. Furthermore, we found in the historical review (Hiim, 2017; Guile, 2006, 2010) a theoretical justification for the adoption of an inferentialist non-dualistic perspective (Brandom, 1995, 2000; Loeffler, 2018). Consequently, we presented the theory of Inferentialism (along with Normative Pragmatism) developed by Brandom to introduce the reader to the key concepts, vocabulary, view on theoretical and practical rationality, and implications for educational practice and research on integration. In this book, Inferentialism is not just taken as a mere theory of meaning (Derry, 2016), nor as a bare tool for reflection (Bakker & Derry, 2011); rather Inferentialism has been the cornerstone of our epistemological stance throughout our empirical investigations. In the case of Chap. 5, moreover, Inferentialism has been the main framework that we eventually operationalised to regard the ILTP phenomenon and to use as an analytical tool. In short, the inferentialist ideas played an essential role in our effort to address the overarching questions of how the ILTP can be conceived and how it proceeds.

6.2 Review of the Main Conclusions and Discussions

163

Next to dealing with the topic of vocational or professional knowledge and its epistemological roots, we reflected on our assumptions by making explicit three questions or issues that emerged during the literature review. First, we questioned our focus on theory and practice, by problematising what the objects of integration in education and instruction are (not only aiming to grasp the meaning of ‘theory and practice’, but also acknowledging that the theory-practice couple might not be the only relevant focus in the study of integration). Second, we raised the question about the desirability of the theory-practice integration and subsequently discussed plausible answers to it assisted by insights into epistemological beliefs (Barger et al., 2016; Hofer & Pintrich, 2012). And third, we questioned our assumption about the attainability of the theory-practice integration, and we addressed this by resorting to the idea of distinctive logics (Beckett, 2000). Concerning the first issue (about the objects of integration) we acknowledged that, next to our focus on theory and practice, there are references in the literature to other objects that also call for attention, such as: disciplines, explicit and implicit knowledge, formal and informal learning approaches, individual and collective learning, learning environments, rationales, horizontal and vertical knowledge, concepts, and experience (see Chap. 2 for references). We concluded that the various objects and focuses of interest are not necessarily incompatible with each other, rather they are proposed to harmonise, thus offering different dimensions to integration; this latter statement is true if we do not fall into the trap of building shortcuts among the pairs of objects, as this is more misleading than helpful (Winch, 2013). Also, with regard to this first question about the objects of integration, and in line with the non dualistic, inferentialist position adopted (which basically poses that ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ cannot be defined as ontologically different entities), we concluded that our core objects of integration are already ‘naturally’ integrated. This implies that it is appropriate to treat theory and practice as different at the analytical level only, e.g., for the purpose of problematising integration. Concerning the second issue (about the desirability of integration), we proposed that people’s epistemological beliefs (Hofer & Pintrich, 2012) about integrated knowledge (e.g., beliefs about its acquisition, validity, and function) are divergent and, therefore, not necessarily in favour of the theory-practice integration. The implication, in any particular instructional context, is that the stakeholders’ personal epistemologies (Hofer & Pintrich, 2012) and convictions about the relevance of integrated knowledge may not always promote curricula, instructional designs and pedagogical practices that are concerned with integrative learning. In its turn, this also implies that research concerned with integration in any context, should consider the actors’ beliefs about integrated knowledge, rather than taking its desirability for granted. Concerning the third issue (about the attainability of integration), we discussed the differentiation between truth-seeking logics in academics and result-seeking logics in the workplace (Beckett, 2000). Such differentiation, which resides at the level of the structure of the argument, suggests that the integration is unattainable and, at the most, an aim to strive for. Oppositely, the differentiation between axioms and maxims (Guile, 2010), which lies at the level of the content of the premises and conclusion (Guile, 2010), suggests that the integration is an attainable goal. These

164

6 Conclusion and Discussion

opposed views pertain to a debate about how to assess validity; the former proposing attention to the logical form, while the latter proposing the analysis of natural language in line with the ideas of material inference and deontic scorekeeping (Brandom, 1994, 2000). In other terms, Brandom’s ideas come to dissolve the problem of distinctive and non-reconcilable logics and, in so doing, render the ILTP attainable. In sum, the integration of theory and practice is often postulated as problematic, and the problematic crux is entrenched in an epistemological disagreement. This problem could (to a high extent) be dissolved by adopting a non-dualistic stance, which is at the centre of the inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories. Insofar as we consider that there is still an integration problem to resolve, we need to consider that the theory-practice integration may be desirable or not (according to people’s epistemological beliefs), and that this integration may be attainable or not (depending on the adopted criteria for knowledge validity assessment). Therefore, when it comes to the attainability of integration, once again the inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories come into play, as they offer us a conducive perspective to try to achieve integration.

6.2.2

Key Actors’ Conceptions of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge and Their Relationship

In Chaps. 3 and 4, we pursued an empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP construct in the CPT context. We proposed that, if we wish to disentangle the theory-practice integration in T-VET in particular learning contexts, a first important step is to grasp the conceptions (cognitive component) and beliefs (emotional component) of the very actors, about theoretical and practical knowledge, and their relationship. Indeed, we advocated that the students and their instructors do not necessarily perceive professional knowledge through received epistemological lenses, rather through their own conceptions and beliefs about (distinctive) forms of knowledge, their nature, acquisition, validation, and use. We borrowed the idea of people having personal epistemologies (Hofer & Pintrich, 2012) to become sensitive to the students and instructors’ discourses. Our investigation gave a voice to three groups of actors, i.e., the students, their tutors at school and in the workplace, and their mentors in the workplace. Following the grounded theory rationale, we first focused on interpersonal epistemological beliefs (Chap. 3) to address two research questions, i.e., about conceptions of theoretical and practical knowledge (first research question), and about conceptions on the relationship between those forms of knowledge (second research question). In response to the first research question, we presented a map of these actors’ epistemological beliefs about theory, practice, and their integration. This refers not only to conceptions of theory or conceptions of practice but, more generally the map depicts perspectives, intersubjective interpretations, and expectations about forms of knowledge, and about how knowledge is generated, validated, shared, and used. The

6.2 Review of the Main Conclusions and Discussions

165

actors categorised pieces of knowledge using often recurrent criteria (see Chap. 2) stemming from personal and negotiated beliefs. These criteria, however, were not used consistently; what counts as (a form of) theory or as (a form of) practice appeared to be relative to contingent references for comparison and dynamic. Here we concluded that people’s beliefs are more sophisticated than naïve (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012), albeit in certain aspects and to certain extents, so that they do not hold strong dichotomous views on theoretical and practical knowledge. This conclusion, moreover, is consistent with the position that theory and practice are not intrinsically different (Guile, 2006, 2010). Although the proposed ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ categories and sub-categories were found to be volatile, we embraced these findings for considering them as legitimated by the solid methodological procedure which had generated them. As an analogy, moreover, other sciences also rely on short-lived species (i.e., unstable species) to build theories; for instance, chemistry relies on the existence of transient intermediate compounds to explain chemical reaction mechanisms, including how catalytic compounds work (e.g., Morrison, & Boyd, 1989; Whitten et al., 1988). In our case, these findings (corresponding to Chap. 3, first research question) led not only to conclusions about the actors’ epistemological beliefs that echoes existing knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012), but also enabled us to see the connections between forms of knowledge (corresponding to Chap. 3, second research question) that eventually allowed us to advance a model of the theory-practice integration. Moreover, the distinction between forms or kinds of knowledge particularly resonates (in terms of shared concerns and purposes) with Young’s (2003) work discussing Durkheim and Vygotsky’s ideas about the interrelationship between forms or kinds of knowledge, and with Winch’s (2013) work that follows and extends Brandom’s inferentialist ideas. These authors are concerned with the common purpose to emphasise the importance of epistemology for curriculum design in consideration of its pedagogical implications. In answering to the second research question, we identified several relationships between and within forms of theoretical and practical knowledge. Among these relationships, ‘explanation’ appears as one of the most prevalent; moreover, given that such providing explanations is referred to as a predominantly social reasoning activity and given its potential to connect distinctive normative domains to each other, we aligned this important relationship with the inferentialist idea of a ‘game of giving and asking for reasons’ (Brandom, 1994, 1995). This conclusion has implications for further research regarding the empirical justification to adopt an inferentialist position. Based on aforementioned forms of knowledge (first research question) and relationships between these forms (second research question), we advanced a networked view on integration with the various forms of knowledge as objects of integration and the cognitive activities as the links between those objects. Such connecting activities, we concluded, are accomplished by multiple agents in most cases. Indeed, rather than building relationships alone, the students mainly draw upon the guidance of more knowledgeable or more experienced others (e.g., the tutor, the mentor, the near colleagues, the technicians from other disciplines and the engineers). We coupled this finding to the concept of ‘zone of proximal

166

6 Conclusion and Discussion

development’ (Vygotsky, 1987), which accounts for the mediation that stretches the students’ reasoning to a higher level. This conclusion has implications for educational practice concerning the need to facilitate integration, rather than considering it as automatically occurring. The integration of theory and practice is revealed as mainly collaborative. Not only are the various connections reliant on social mediation (as proposed above), but also the pieces of knowledge that need to be integrated appear to be distributed amongst multiple actors. These are arguments to question the expected autonomy of the student in the integrative learning process; this also implies that, if we wish to work on what facilitates that process, we need not to overestimate the students’ agency (Billett, 2002, 2009) and, accordingly, not to underestimate the role of the workplace and its affordances. In sum, the actors’ negotiations allowed us to identify their previously unspoken conceptions about sub-forms of theory and practice; this first finding further revealed the various connections that, together, led to a possible expression of the overall ‘integration of theory and practice’, conceived as a complex network of relationships between multiple uses of knowledge and embodied by several agents. Without this data-driven model, we may overlook the actors’ conceptions and attempt to understand them through our own pre-conceptions.

6.2.3

Process and Outcome Aspects of the ILTP in T-VET

Building on Chap. 3, we pursued our investigation in the same context (i.e., CPT-programmes) and according to the same methodology (i.e., grounded theory). In Chap. 4, we focused on the proper conceptualisation of integration guided by the plain question of what constitutes the ILTP in our context of interest. In response to this research question, we advanced descriptions of the process and outcome aspects of the ILTP based on their most predominant features, including different dimensions along which such process and outcome can be positioned. Concerning the description of the process, we concluded that ‘integrative learning’ is portrayed in several ways, i.e., as a stepwise approach to contents, as a mirror of the instructional strategy employed and, furthermore, as a course of professional and personal development. Regarding the description of the outcome, the ‘integrated knowledge’ is mainly conceived of as an insight. Such insight is further characterised as holistic (i.e., often explicitly opposed to fragmented forms of knowledge), deeply meaningful (rather than tacit), transferable (albeit after adaption) and self-sustainable (thus appealing to an inquisitiveness that preserves continued learning). In the same line, integrated knowledge is not only associated to those instant discoveries of connections between pieces of knowledge, but also conceived of in terms of more gradually growing abilities or skills, such as: engaging in reasoning with others, solving problems and pursuing learning. Moreover, the six dimensions that give account of the ILTP (three for process aspects and three for outcome aspects, respectively) are proposed as continua; although each dimension can be described in terms of its observed extremes, these

6.2 Review of the Main Conclusions and Discussions

167

extremes are intended to delimit extents, rather than to introduce dichotomic or opposed stadia (except for the time dimension that presents three discrete positions instead of a continuum). The three process dimensions are intentionality, time, and locus of learning; where the first two dimensions are to some extent consistent with prior knowledge of non-formal learning (Eraut, 2000). The three outcome dimensions are purpose, logic, and locus of knowledge; in particular, the logic dimension is in line with existing knowledge on the ‘epistemology of practice’ (Beckett, 2000). In all, each dimension is an invitation to reflect; just as we proposed a particular position for the case we investigated, we expect that these sets of dimensions can be used by practitioners to reflect about the particular cases they are concerned with in terms of where the learning process and the learning outcome are positioned along these six lines. In terms of the process dimensions, we concluded that, in this context, (1) the integrative learning is mainly deliberate, (2) there is no predominant point in time in which stimuli are originated, and (3) the integrative learning appears as a highly individual process (despite the generalised conviction among the actors that learning involves social activity). The latter apparent contradiction may stem from the conviction, in the CPT-programme studied, that isolating a student from their peer students favours the student’s socialisation into work teams (Heinz, 2008). Regarding the outcome dimensions, we concluded that integrated knowledge (1) is primarily driven by functionality and performance goals (rather than by mastery), (2) tends to be assessed according to both truth-seeking and performance-seeking logics, and (3) is liable to move from an internal locus to an externally perceived one (i.e., from an individual to a more distributed asset). It is not equally straightforward to position the outcome of the ILTP along its three dimensions; in Chap. 4 we discussed apparent inconsistencies and elaborated on their plausible implications. Furthermore, we suggest that there is a dialogue between process and outcome; such dialogue surfaces when we attend to how the process features and the outcome features (as represented in the six dimensions) inform each other. In Chap. 4, we elaborated on this mutual relationship using the CPT-programme as illustration, while we indicated instances of congruency and incongruency. Additionally, this study also yielded new insights into coexisting views on integration among the actors in the context of our study, i.e., the between-integration and the within-integration (as labelled in Chap. 4). While the former perspective focuses on what distinguishes theory from practice and on the need to bridge forms of knowledge, the latter foregrounds the use of concepts in explanations involving both theoretical and practical considerations. To some extent, the betweenintegration perspective is primarily in line with existing knowledge about integrative pedagogies (e.g., Tynjälä, 2008) that calls for reflection as one of the means towards integration. On the other hand, the within-integration perspective is largely consistent with existing knowledge about Inferentialism (Brandom 1995, 2000; Guile 2010) that is more concerned with concurrent theoretical and practical rationality (Loeffler, 2018). With these perspectives in mind, we propose that any claims about whether the theory-practice integration occurs (or the extent to which it occurs), are inevitably coloured by the claimer’s epistemological position. Finally, whereas the between-integration and within-integration perspectives can be clearly distinguished

168

6 Conclusion and Discussion

in some instances, they appear intertwined in other. It follows that an emphasis on the theory-practice distinction does not necessarily deny the relevance attached to giving reasons as a means to understanding and learning, nor the other way around. Echoing Guile (2006) in his defence of Inferentialism, we advocate that the distinction between theory and practice is both necessary and relevant and that such distinction (provided it is made at an analytical level only) does not reflect a dualism. In short, Chap. 4 (in tandem with Chap. 3) allowed us to grasp the actual actors’ interpersonal conceptions and beliefs about theory, practice, and their integration, to interpret any further research results more trustfully. Additionally, these studies added empirical support to the selection of an inferentialist perspective for further research.

6.2.4

Bringing Theoretical and Practical Judgements Together in Discursive Reasoning

Chapter 5 aimed to understand the process of integrative learning in terms of social reasoning (i.e., focusing on the exchange of verbal utterances within groups of actors). Supported by our previous studies, we overtly adopted an inferentialist non-dualistic perspective on theory and practice. In our study, Brandom’s (1994, 2000) theory plays the role of epistemological background, providing us a frame that explains the social development of networks of concepts and practices. Here, we do not think in terms of ‘knowledge’, but in terms of ‘responsiveness to reasons’ (Brandom, 1994, 2000; Derry, 2016; Loeffler, 2018); similarly, we do not think in terms of ‘theoretical and practical knowledge’, but in terms of ‘theoretical and practical rationality’ (Brandom, 1994, 2000; Loeffler, 2018). Furthermore, we operationalised this theory to (a) reformulate the central research question and (b) translate it into an analytical framework that we employed to regard the empirical data. In inferentialist terms, the research question which guided our investigation is about how theoretical and practical judgements are brought together in discursive reasoning; such question was further broken down to grasp variations at the level of chains of reasoning. Based on our operationalisation, we set up a longitudinal empirical investigation, according to a mixed-methods approach (e.g., Sammons & Davis, 2017; Thomson & Holland, 2003), that would reveal patterns of responsiveness and their variation over time. The empirical investigation progressed, similarly to the studies described in Chaps. 3 and 4, in the context of alternating school-based and work-based learning in the field of CPT; here the focus was on discursive exchanges within student-tutor-mentor triads. Accordingly, the results of this study pertain to these triads, rather to the learning of the individual students. In this study, we observed that the theory-practice integration develops to certain extent throughout the learning programme considered (i.e., certain features show variation over time) while, on the other hand, part of the integration occurs naturally (i.e., other features are present from the beginning and stabilise over time). The former part refers to a positive variation in the actors’ joint responsiveness to

6.3 Overall Conclusion and Discussion

169

theoretical and to practical reasons or, in other terms, a growth in their ability to use theoretical and practical assertions in an inferential way. This finding resulted in a description of the theory-practice integration in terms of the progressive inclusion of theoretical and practical claims during the social construction of chains of inferences. More specifically, the ILTP process can be seen, as a collaborative effort to further develop responsiveness to reasons, according to a progressive incorporation of practical judgements to chains of reasoning, as well as a progressive incorporation of new (and more encompassing) concepts to those chains. This implies that the integration process does not benefit the individual student alone, but the group of participants in the discursive reasoning; the ILTP process results in a shared web of reasons (Bakker & Derry, 2011) that is more branched and more cogent over time. This entire process is monitored by the very participants as they engage in the conversations; the process is embedded in a normative context (Brandom, 1994, 2000), in which both the students and their instructors take responsibility for their claims and for the implications thereof. It follows that all speakers assess the truth of each others’ claims (according to the content that is exposed while using natural language to make inferences explicit) and they evaluate each others’ responsiveness (in terms of their ability to build inferences in order to advance reasons for their claims). Such assessment of truth corresponds to Brandom’s (1994, 2000) idea of ‘material inference’, while the evaluation of each others’ responsiveness corresponds to his idea of ‘deontic scorekeeping’. Furthermore, we concluded that the process of integration, despite its occurring naturally to some extent, needs to be facilitated. Indeed, the combined use of theoretical and practical judgements (in justifications, extensions and critiques) appears to be challenging and even overwhelming; we suggest that the success of the ILTP depends on the quality and quantity of participation in the reasoning exchanges. We found that the quantity of participation may be linked to aspects of the instructional design such as the time available for social reasoning and the pursued breadth of the contents. Also, we contend that the quality of participation may be associated to the properties of the student-instructors group such as the group dynamics and related to the epistemological beliefs (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012) of these actors. Certain beliefs may compromise the actors’ engagement in the social reasoning, e.g., preference for the assessment of truth by ‘appeal to authority’ (Dare & Girard, 2015) rather than through the mechanisms of material inference and deontic scorekeeping (Brandom, 1994, 2000).

6.3

Overall Conclusion and Discussion

Next to the individual contributions from each study to the overall book, the findings from all the studies are thematically closely related. Firstly, an alignment was found between the non-dualism that characterises the inferentialist epistemological positioning (Chap. 2) and the actors’ epistemological beliefs (Chap. 3). This is an important conclusion that acts as a pincer, as it confers both theoretical and empirical justification for the further adoption of the inferentialist theory. Secondly,

170

6 Conclusion and Discussion

concerning the actors’ perspectives on integration (Chap. 3) and on integrative learning (Chaps. 4 and 5), complementarity and consistency were found. Indeed, the idea of the ‘ILTP as a network of relationships that are embodied by multiple agents’ (Chap. 3) is in keeping with the within-integration perspective, which ‘emphasises the explanatory power of what has been learnt, regardless of the origin of such knowledge’ (Chap. 4). It is also in keeping with the inferentialist description of the ILTP as ‘as a process of progressive social reasoning in which theoretical and practical judgements co-construct chains of reasoning around concepts through justifications, implications and critiques’ (Chap. 5). Thirdly, regarding the description of the ILTP process, the inferentialist description (Chap. 5) is liable to analysis according to the three process dimensions, i.e., ‘intentionality’, ‘time of the prompt’ and ‘locus of learning’ (Chap. 4). Finally, regarding the description of the expected outcome of the ILTP, the conception of the expected outcome of integrative learning as the development of an ‘insight’ – as opposed to mere application or problemsolving – (Chap. 4), is consistent with the idea of ‘learning as mastery’ which accompanies the inferentialist perspective on the ILTP (Chap. 5). Similarly, to what we did in Chap. 1 (where we outlined the four studies with a focus on their topic and purposes) we present Fig. 6.1 to outline the contribution of each study to the overall book. From this figure, it is clear how the studies have examined integration from different lenses. Overall, we contend that this book appropriately addresses the initial ‘omission problem’ and advances new insights into the ILTP. The conceptualisation and process description advanced in this book play a significant part in unravelling the ILTP and are expected to have important implications for educational practice and research. These are discussed later in this chapter. From a temporal aspect, the studies developed with considerable overlap rather than proceeding in a mere sequence. In this way, the ideas emerging in each investigation somehow nourished each other. At the bottom of Fig. 6.1, we identify the ‘outputs’ of each study to denote implications (mainly) within this book, i.e., results and conclusions that informed the other ongoing or starting studies. As explained in Sect. 3.2.1, our work started in an explorative way, with an interest in understanding what ‘integration of theory and practice’ was all about. Initially, the idea was to investigate what ‘integration’ means and how it proceeds, by provisionally using plausible notions or definitions of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ as the objects of integration. However, trying to find definitions of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ brought us to the world of epistemological debates. It appeared inappropriate to impose some dictionary definition of these objects to jump directly into the study of its relationship. Eventually, the three concepts (i.e., integrative learning, theory, and practice) revealed themselves nested, and their study inseparable. Such was the main learning from the initial stages of the literature study in Chap. 2, along with the knowledge gap we found in the empirical literature concerning any conceptualisation of integration. Our literature study started in a systematic fashion and subsequently extended throughout the entire project thanks to snowballing literature and thanks to recommended literature from peer researchers (e.g., journal reviewers and conferences participants). The confrontation with the lack of a conceptual basis to build on, as described above, was the driving force to pursue the exploration according to a grounded theory approach (see Sect. 3.2.2). Beyond the epistemological debates at the

Fig. 6.1 Contribution of each study to the overall investigation

6.3 Overall Conclusion and Discussion 171

172

6 Conclusion and Discussion

theoretical level, we set out to grasp a conceptualisation of our objects of inquiry (Säljö, 2009) at the level of the actors’ epistemological beliefs and in the selected empirical context of interest). This investigation gave rise to the studies reported in Chap. 4. An important output of these studies, along with the ongoing literature review, was the rationale and justification for the use of Inferentialism as a conducive perspective to further our project. The inferentialist ideas appeared to us as a lighthouse in the mist; it offered us, above all, the key idea that the distinction between theory and practice is liable, valuable, and appropriate at the analytical level (while making such distinction does not mean that we fall into the dualistic trap at the ontological level). At this point, we understood that the data-driven, grounded theory approach had taught us something very important and the time had come to turn to a theory-driven approach for furthering our project. That is how Inferentialism became the cornerstone of the last empirical study in this work (see Chap. 5). Before putting the inferentialist ideas to work, we had to translate the theoretical framework into a research tool that would allow us to reformulate our research questions and, consistently, to interpret any collected data. The operationalisation of the inferentialist framework proceeded concurrently with the research design for the study in Chap. 5. Indeed, if Inferentialism focuses on social reasoning and discursive exchanges, it was important to select empirical settings that would be rich in such conversations. (and these settings, of course, embedded in the broader instructional context selected). In other terms, the study in Chap. 5, finally, yielded not only the aforementioned operationalisation, but also the results of putting such operationalisation to work in the selected empirical context. Such results consist of a new view on integration and on a description of the process of integration. With these elements we were already able to (a) signal areas of concern and (b) suggest factors where to work on in order to promote integration. Throughout the entire investigation, we continued attending to the literature; we learnt about other researchers concerned with Inferentialism and, more particularly, the implications on education and instruction. Our study not only fits in this inferentialist current in education but also, we contend, contributes to supporting it and to furthering it. For example, our study is strongly aligned with the mastery metaphor for learning, which promises to develop into a new learning theory.

6.4

Focus as a Strength and as a Weakness

Making deliberate choices and taking a position can be seen as a strength (as it increases coherence and consistency, while enabling sharper questions and finergrained analysis), but it may also be seen as a weakness (as it introduces the risk of partial views that elude the complexity of phenomena). This book positions within the T-VET research field, with an interest on particular topics and according to particular disciplines, as explained before. Inevitably, there are related topics, disciplines, and perspectives that our studies have not touched and that could represent interesting paths for continuing research.

6.4 Focus as a Strength and as a Weakness

173

The present work is concerned with the psychological and cognitive aspects of people’s epistemological beliefs (Bromme et al., 2010; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2012; Schommer-Aikins et al., 2000), as this lens is coherent with our research purposes. However, there is a potential to explore other aspects of epistemological beliefs, such as the sociological (de Brabander & Rozendaal, 2007). This book could be extended towards motivational spheres and to the domain of developmental conceptions of learning (van Rossum & Hamer, 2010). Similarly, this work could be extended towards the sociological sphere, for example: by entering the topic of functional aspects of people’s epistemological beliefs, by raising the question about the formation of individuals’ epistemological beliefs in relation with their social and cultural backgrounds, by attending to debates about the distinction between occupation, vocation and profession, or by attending to debates about different kinds of curricula and their relevance to different stakeholders. Also attention can be devoted to any correspondence or any contrast of the present work with existing knowledge on ‘boundary crossing’ (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). We contend that several conclusions from the studies on boundaries are relevant to the present book, whereas the focus of both research lines appear to be quite different. In sum, although these research lines may not afford to further build on each other, their conclusions can be complementary. Similarly, studies focusing on the ‘contextualisation of vocational knowledge’ (Heusdens et al., 2016) present both congruence and conflict in relation to ours; although the different works do not strictly build on each other, they enrich each other in terms of e.g., different uses of the same assumptions and theoretical framework. Our research into integrative learning further focuses at the micro-level of analysis. Rather than focusing on the meso-level or at the macro-levels (which principally deal with topics such as curriculum design, or connectivity and governance), our microlevel approach pays attention to the learning process. More particularly, we attend the cognitive aspects of learning in terms of reasoning. This research line could be extended in future research to include learning strategies as well. Additionally, research into expertise development can be seen as a natural extension of our topic and of our methodological perspective. However, the focus on expertise development escapes the scope of the present book (due to feasibility reasons) and represents an outstanding opportunity for continuing research. Finally, we wish to emphasise that this work is in the first place interested in integrative learning as a phenomenon. Although the chemical sector was deliberately selected as empirical context (Chap. 1 presenting the corresponding rationale), neither the context nor the individuals are central to our studies, only the integrative learning process is. Unlike other studies with an interest in vocational education, our purpose was not to present a thorough description of any particular vocation or profession but, instead, to understand the integrative learning process at a preliminary stage of expertise development. If that had been our purpose, the participating subjects would have been process operators with at least 5-year experience. It is not possible to contextualise the vocational knowledge of a process operator through the recounts and behaviour of operators-to-be and novice operators. Unlike other studies interested in individual trajectories, the individuals’ struggles and strategies are not the object of our studies. Instead, our studies are about learning. We sought to

174

6 Conclusion and Discussion

understand interpersonal epistemologies through the individuals’ negotiated perceptions, as much as we sought to understand integrative learning through the individuals progressive social reasoning. We consider that a study particularly dedicated to individual trajectories, constitutes an interesting opportunity for future research.

6.5

Methodological Reflections

At this point, we discuss the limitations of our present work, and we categorise them into: (a) the extent of generalisability, (b) the natural empirical setting, and (c) evaluation of the student’s ILTP process and outcome. The first two categories pertain to the research design of the empirical studies (see Chaps. 3, 4 and 5) seen in retrospect, while the last limitation refers to a pending issue of the inferentialist framework for its use in education and instruction. In the following paragraphs, we elaborate on these aspects that can benefit from further attention and study.

6.5.1

The Extent of Generalisability

We introduced the context of our investigations in Chap. 1 and presented further details in Chap. 3. Furthermore, we discussed the reasons why we selected the CPT context and proposed that this context contributed to the richness of this work. However, the bare fact that we concentrated our efforts on a single context, poses certain limits to the reach of our claims. Indeed, the ‘inferential generalisation’ in qualitative research is concerned with whether (or in how far) the empirical results of a piece of research remain valid in other situations or contexts (Mortelmans, 2007); the suggested strategy to promote such inferential generalisation is the so-called ‘thick description’ (Cohen et al., 2011; Mortelmans, 2007). While adding to methodological integrity, thick descriptions enable us to identify characteristics of the context that, if absent, could lead to different conclusions and, eventually, enable us to establish under which conditions it is fair to generalise. Therefore, the question arises of the extent to which our conclusions can be generalised beyond the context of this book. As we already suggested in Sect. 4.8, our conclusions are tenable in any context whose relevant features are comparable to the features of the CPT-programmes and to their broader imbedding (to certain proportions). Based on our experience, we consider that the following features are relevant to assess the comparability of the contexts: (a) the professionals concerned are ‘knowledge workers’ -see Chap. 3- from whom complex reasoning is expected next to any particular skills, (b) a constructive tension exists in order to keep a reasonable balance between the ‘need-to-know’ and the ‘nice-to-know’, (c) the between-integration and the within-integration perspectives co-exist (the former emphasising what is distinctive of theory and practice, the latter emphasising that such distinction is not intrinsic). We acknowledge that our conclusions may be context-bounded to a certain extent and that contextual differences can be expected

6.5 Methodological Reflections

175

regarding the pedagogical approaches in the various learning environments; therefore, we suggest that continuing research could test the external validity of our findings in different contexts to cast more light on the issue of inferential generalisability. Similarly, we also examine the ‘theoretical generalisability’ (Mortelmans, 2007) of the studies in Chapters 3 and 4, which followed a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Glaser 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The question of theoretical generalisability is a concern about the ‘universality’ of the generated hypotheses and relations, i.e., whether these transcend the level of the individual case(s) considered. We somehow counteracted this limitation early in this chapter, by linking our results to existing sensitising concepts (thus showing how our conclusions relate to existing knowledge), as well as by linking the contributions of the three empirical studies to each other. Still, it remains important that continuing research adds arguments for the universality of our conceptualisation and description of the ILTP.

6.5.2

The Natural Empirical Setting

In previous chapters we advocated for the use of a natural empirical setting and presented a rationale for its selection in terms being able to describe the ILTP phenomenon as it develops, thus embracing its whole complexity. However, the natural setting also entrains limitations to research (Cohen et al., 2011). We discuss four limitations that pertain to the CPT settings at school and in the workplace, more particularly during the ‘interactive presentations’ observed in the study in Chap. 4 and the ‘formative-evaluative sessions’ observed in the study in Chap. 5. These issues were quite unpredictable at the time of the research design and only emerged in the course of the investigations.

6.5.2.1

The Extent of the Curriculum at the Expense of the Depth

Based on the preliminary interviews with the tutors, we assumed that the students’ exchanges with their peers (interactive presentations) and with their instructors (i.e., the formative-evaluative sessions) would be more directed towards integrative learning (i.e., the instructional conditions deliberately in place to support progressive theoretical and practical reasoning). However, it was often the case that the concepts were hardly revised; instead, each new session broadened the scope with new content. Beyond the effects that such practice may have on the integrative learning, in terms of data collection this resulted in reduced opportunities to observe changes in responsiveness and growing mastery of a concept. Continuing research with a focus on social reasoning could benefit from a more controlled empirical setting. The instructors could receive a semi-structured script to help them promote reasoning, rather to hurry to cover as much content as possible.

176

6.5.2.2

6 Conclusion and Discussion

Just a Window to the Larger Natural Setting

Another limitation relates to the dependency of some results on the empirical setting. Here we are questioning the affordances of the setting to allow us to grasp the whole ILTP phenomenon. For example, in Chap. 5, we found that the conversations in the control room were rich in theoretical and practical judgements but less so in observational (or perceptual) judgments. Indeed, the analysis of conversations that had taken place in the control room yielded very few perceptual judgements (Brandom, 1994, 2000; Loeffler, 2018), while the conversations that took place during the field tours resulted in more perceptual judgements. Given that only the indoors conversations could be recorded, our data set does not fully account for the actors’ overall use of perceptual judgements in their reasoning. In other words, we presume that perceptual judgements may be expected to be more frequently used in a different physical setting, e.g., in the field among the actual equipment (thus in the presence of sources of all kinds of perceptual inputs) or, alternatively, in a highfidelity simulated setting. However, our data collection does not provide such evidence. In other words, our claims about perceptual judgements being largely absent, may be the result of our empirical setting rather than a true account of their occurrence. Further research interested in including perceptual judgements (next to the theoretical and the practical) in the question about integration, need to explore for technological solutions that allow (at least) recording of speech in the field, while filtering excessive noise and provided that the use of these devices does not compromise safety in potentially explosive atmospheres. Concurrently, it could also be expected that the more hostile conditions of the field (e.g., noise, bad weather conditions, need to attend to latent hazards) do not benefit reasoning; we expect that perceptual judgements in the field are involved in conversations mainly through compatibility relations than inferentially (Brandom, 1994, 2000; Loeffler, 2018). Again, our data do not provide enough evidence to support such expectations. These hypotheses are interesting opportunities for future research.

6.5.2.3

Time

Also, the natural setting restricts the period available for data collection; this imposes assumptions about what can be reasonably be taken as ‘over time’ (Roe, 2008) in the design of the longitudinal approach. The literature gives us no clues about how long it can take for variations in responsiveness to become observable. It seemed reasonable to expect already some observable variation during the data collection period (i.e., a one-year programme). Although we found an increase in responsiveness (see Chap. 5), stronger evidence about variations in responsiveness are likely to appear in the longer run. Indeed, the programme coordinators acknowledged that it takes years to attain the level of an independent (panel) operator.

6.5 Methodological Reflections

177

Neither is it possible to extrapolate the results, i.e., we did not assume that the observed variation would hold during the further professional life. Therefore, continuing research efforts to project our operationalisation of the inferentialist framework (see Chap. 5) onto the study of expertise development, will benefit from a longitudinal design (Ruspini, 2002) that prescribes, ideally, a data collection period of much longer run with the same participants or, alternatively, a repeated cross-sectional study of parallel groups which are drawn simultaneously from a population (Cohen et al., 2011). In the latter case, these parallel groups should be composed of professionals with various levels of expertise (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980).

6.5.2.4

Delayed Intentional Action

As discussed in the description of our empirical context (see Chap. 1), students in CPT are mainly peripheral observers in the workplace, as they do not have opportunities to intervene in the operation activities. Although they need to give reasons for their claims when they present descriptions and explanations, their reasoning does not culminate in actually making a decision that leads to an action. Subsequently, they neither need to justify their actions. In other terms, practical judgements (i.e., assertions conveying some sort of intentionality or purpose), only relate to hypothetical if-then scenarios, or to delayed intentional action. Therefore, beyond the reasoning and discursive activities, we have been unable to study how (individual or collective) reasoning eventually derives into decision and action. Studying such truncated chains of reasoning constitutes a limitation because we do not know whether the decisive links could affect the overall features of the inferential chains. The question rises of whether and how the integration of theoretical and practical judgements develops differently when decision, action and justification of the action become part of the initial reasoning. This limitation is not necessarily severe in our study of students in transition (for whom dealing with process upsets is considered too complex and, therefore, goes beyond the learning goal). However, we expect this limitation to become a concern if the same research design is used to study expertise development, without any modification. If the target group remains students in transition or novices, we suggest that the data collection in a natural setting (as in our studies so far) is complemented with data collection, with the same subjects, during problem-solving scenarios in simulated conditions (Fernandes, 2002; Toselli et al., 2009). The comparison of the two data sets would be informative of whether the actual action changes the way in which theoretical and practical reasoning are integrated. Later in this chapter, when we discuss the opportunity to investigate responsiveness (in terms of judgement and action), we return to the suggestion that simulated conditions are used not only for learning but for research purposes.

178

6.5.3

6 Conclusion and Discussion

Evaluation of the Student’s ILTP Process and Outcome

As explained before, our framework and methods do not allow us to isolate the student performance in order to make claims about their progress and achievements in terms of theory-practice integration. We pointed to this issue in Chap. 5 to avoid misinterpretations of our findings (e.g., attributing differences between triads to the particular students). This limitation is inherent to the focus on social reasoning and its closely related normative pragmatism (represented by the ideas of GoGAR and scorekeeping). In other terms, so far, we have no support to make claims about a student’s growing responsiveness because we cannot isolate the effect of the tutor and the mentor, i.e., a student may appear more responsive to reasons only because they receive the right challenges. Therefore, evaluating the student’s progress and achievement looks like a pending issue if the inferentialist and normative pragmatist frameworks are to be further used in education and instruction. We discuss pathways to address this issue in the following section as an opportunity for future research, under the heading ‘the extent of theory-practice integration’.

6.6

Opportunities for Future Research

At this point and based on what we have learnt with this book, we take the time to propose new paths for future research that we consider important. Common to these opportunities is our suggestion to continue building on the inferentialist framework, either by further stretching its possibilities, or by combining it with other research lines and methods. The proposed opportunities for future research are: (1) exploring beyond the rationalistic aspect, (2) focus on responsiveness: judgement and action, (3) representation and reasoning, (4) social reasoning and inner speech, (5) inferentialism and conceptual change, (6) truth and the formation of epistemic beliefs, (7) inferentialist perspective on expertise development, (8) transfer of theory and practice through an inferentialist lens, and (9) focus on the extent of the theorypractice integration. These research opportunities cannot be prioritised in a general fashion, as they may carry different importance and urgency for different target groups. Next, we discuss each opportunity by explaining the necessity to address each topic and by providing suggestions on how to approach them.

6.6.1

Exploring Beyond the Rationalistic Aspect

Inferentialism may first appear to be purely rationalistic, due to Brandom’s focus on making things explicit and articulating reasons. Closer consideration reveals, however, that the linguistic and mentalistic form of reasons is not the only possible

6.6 Opportunities for Future Research

179

interpretation of his theory (Heusdens et al., 2016). Certainly, if we consider the very idea of inference and the idea of webs of reasons (part of the pragmatist philosophy) we see coherence between various aspects of learning. “What creates the coherence among judgements, actions, and emotions, and among knowledge elements of very different natures, are the inferences and webs of reasons involved in knowledgebased actions within a vocation” (Heusdens et al., 2016, p. 158). Indeed, in our studies we found indications of such coherence (or at least interaction) that seem relevant to be further explored. More particularly, we refer to opportunities to investigate the role that (a) power relations, (b) psychological aspects, (c) motivational aspects, and (d) individual trajectories have on the integrative learning. Power relations among the micro-level actors may intervene in social reasoning in many positive ways (e.g., challenging, stimulating), but also in negative ways (e.g., imposing, silencing). Indeed, the event we presented as illustration in Chap. 1 already suggests that there is more at play than the cognitive aspect only. A dedicated conversational analysis (Johnstone, 2008) of the conversations could shed new light on the issue of power relations. In this line, in Chap. 4 we already advanced the importance of conferring the conversations a formative character rather than a strong evaluative character. A focus on the psychological aspect could enrich Brandom’s mainly pragmatic philosophic approach. The inferentialist view on integrative learning may benefit from an explanation of a psychological ‘mechanism’ that accounts for the reasons behind the actors’ claims. To be consistent with the inferentialist spirit, future research efforts in this line should attend to what is distinctively human -rather than attempting to bridge brain and mind, as some branches of psychology do(Derry, 2017). This involves placing emphasis on activity and the development of meaning, as well as being concerned with the movement of thought (rather than with snapshots) in the articulation of meaning; “[...] the meaning of a concept, rather than being fixed, is fleshed out by the inferential connections that constitute it. As these connections change, so the meanings of concepts alter” (Derry, 2017, p. 404). Motivational aspects are expected to be closely related to several concepts that are central in the present book. For example, epistemological beliefs (see Chap. 3), and intentionality and purpose (see Chap. 5). Indeed, a reading of our data through the motivational lens already suggests (among many other) that: (1) students and mentors lack self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) when it comes to dealing with theory, (2) students and mentors tend to belief that theoretical knowledge is privileged to others, (3) professional identity acts a motor; students’ deliberate choices to carry out certain activities are directed by their developing professional identity (Klotz et al., 2014; Reader, 2008), (4) there are aligned and conflicting views on professional identity, (5) the individual student’s motivation to learn integratively is affected by classmates, tutors, mentors and professional teams. These emergent findings are indications that a systematic analysis focusing on motivational aspects is likely to yield new important knowledge on the role of motivation on the ILTP. As explained above in the case of psychological aspects in general, it is important that theories

180

6 Conclusion and Discussion

working together can truly be aligned; when it comes to including motivation in continuing research, it is crucial to screen different motivational theories and select one that presents no conflicts with the inferentialist framework. A focus on individual trajectories may constitute an interesting opportunity to shift the centrality currently set on the ILTP phenomenon to a centrality of the individuals. For example, an investigation about the students’ everyday beliefs, struggles and broad strategies could be informative about the origin and formation of epistemological beliefs, more particularly the sociological aspects of epistemological beliefs, which are concerned with the function of knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 2012). Furthermore, an insight into the students’ characteristics and how they interpret the presage (i.e., their own features and those of the learning context) is expected to contribute to revealing the relationships between different components of learning, according to the holistic 3-P model of the workplace (Tynjälä, 2013).

6.6.2

Responsiveness: Judgement and Action

In the present study, we focused on integration in terms of the use of judgements in reasoning. In so doing, we only partially addressed Brandom’s idea of responsiveness (1994, 2000). As presented in the introductory section, responsiveness regards not only the use of inferences in discourse but, moreover, the use of inferences in action (i.e., choosing to act, or not to act, for a reason). This is supported by Winch (2010), who proposes (albeit in other terms) that the integration of theory and practice develops both in action and in judgement. To address the question of how social judgement and action contribute to growing mastery of concepts (and to expertise development), we suggest working with problem-solving scenarios in simulated conditions. When we observe an action, we can assume it is the product of an implicit judgement and thus consider it as an act of responsiveness. However, if we cannot justify that some implicit judgement played a role in the decision to act, then we can also assume that the action merely responds to an adopted practice (a belief, trusting what others say), while the performer does not (fully) understand why or how the action taken actually tackles a given problem. In this latter case, the performer will have difficulties in finding the origin of the problem and proceed to trial-and-error (thus probably only mitigating the problem instead of actually solving it). This illustrates the relevance of distinguishing mere action from responsive action. Moreover, responsive action is expected to contribute to learning (in terms of growing mastery and expertise), while mere action is not. The study in Chap. 5 suggests that working with scenarios can be a fruitful way forward. As an example, we refer to a conversation about a problem-solving of a process upset in a battery of distillation columns (uniformly amplative chain, source Z4, chain 18). It concerns an instance of responsiveness in terms of both engaging in the formation of a judgement and in choosing to act in certain way for a reason. But if the reason for acting is an adopted practice (a belief, trusting what others say), while

6.6 Opportunities for Future Research

181

people do not (fully) understand why or how the action you take actually helps, they have difficulties in finding the origin of the problem. This event calls for a comparative case study (e.g., Crossley & Vulliamy, 1984) that includes an intervention based on the use of problem-solving scenarios, where the learners must locate the problem first instead of solving it by trial-and-error. It is important that the scenarios present ill-structured problems, i.e., that can be approached using a knowledgebased method (van Merriënboer, 2013). According to the mentioned evidence and to our experience, we expect to observe an important difference: in the trial-and-error approach to problem-solving the learner will only be compensating or mitigating the problem instead of solving it. Only the analysis of the problem through theoretical and practical reasoning is expected to lead to a solution that eliminates the root cause (s) of the problem. Testing this hypothesis represents an interesting opportunity for future research.

6.6.3

Representation and Reasoning

Although Inferentialism is often portrayed as a reaction against representationism, Brandom also acknowledges that representations can contribute to reasoning (Loeffler, 2018). Indeed, Brandom introduces a shift from ‘conceptual representation’ to the ‘inferential role of concepts’ as the fundamental unit of meaning, but he also recognises the representational dimension of inferential claims and thought (Loeffler, 2018). Note that we are not advocating for a ‘weak inferentialism’ or some sort of hybrid view, rather we stick to Brandom’s ‘strong inferentialism’ by which the inferential role of a sentence is necessary and sufficient for constituting the meaning of the sentence (Loeffler, 2018). The idea of inference without representation turns out to be unintelligible, but we can make sense of both the expressive dimension and the representational dimension of content by talking about such propositional content in purely inferential terms. Loeffler, 2018, p. 16

We noted in Chap. 5 that social reasoning is rich in uses of verbal and non-verbal representations. As an example, among the many verbal representations used, we cite the term ‘endothermic’; first used as a mere representation (as if it were selfexplanatory), it required that another speaker would raise the question about the meaning of the representation, in order to assess understanding (i.e., in order to assess mastery of the concept through its use in a theoretical or a practical way, by making an inference that connects this particular concept with other ones, such as ‘heat of reaction’ and ‘potential energy of substances’). Among the non-verbal representations, we also found several examples ranging from pictograms to schematisations of process equipment, to whole process flow diagrams. Either verbal or not, some representations are used in a meaningless fashion while other ones appear to be (or to become) meaningful elements of chains of reasoning.

182

6 Conclusion and Discussion

An empirical study about the contribution of representations to reasoning, can shed new light on the integration of theory and practice. The framework for such study could combine (a) the inferentialist theory as operationalised in the present work with (b) existing knowledge on ‘the use of representations in reasoning and problem solving’ (Verschaffel et al., 2010).

6.6.4

Social Reasoning and Inner Speech

Although Inferentialism strongly promotes reasoning as a social process, we suggest that it is important to avoid a ‘radical inferentialism’ that denies the individual reasoning activity. Just as Vygotsky’s (1987) cultural mediation constitutes an important legacy for Brandom’s Inferentialism (acknowledging that our actions are somehow controlled from the outside), also Vygotsky’s (1986) idea of ‘inner speech’ is expected to contribute to our understanding of integrative learning. The term ‘inner speech’ is used to denote a form of internalised, self-directed dialogue, which is not just the interior aspect of external speech (where thought is embodied in words) but it is a function in itself. “It is a dynamic, shifting, unstable thing, fluttering between word and thought, the two more or less stable, more or less firmly delineated components of verbal thought” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 249). We contend that it is relevant to re-emphasise the potential contribution of inner speech to social reasoning, not only in theoretical discussions (McDowell, 1986) but in further empirical research on ILTP. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to propose a ready-to-use formula for the study of inner speech. Such enterprise may require understanding of what the concept of inner speech follows from, e.g., by means of a multidisciplinary approach with the neurosciences and linguistics to unfold the dynamic ‘fluttering between word and thought’.

6.6.5

Inferentialism and Conceptual Change

Further study on how the theory-practice integration develops over time according to the inferentialist perspective, can benefit from a fine-grained approach that, moreover, exploits existing knowledge on conceptual change. Such combined approach requires that, among several theories on conceptual change (Vosniadou, 2009), we adopt a view on conceptual change that is consistent with Inferentialism. Indeed, the inferentialist theory poses clearly that single concepts are meaningless and that they only acquire meaning when used in inferences that connect to other concepts (Brandom, 1994, 2000). Therefore, we need to be cautious not to attempt to isolate single concepts for their study. It follows that a consistent conceptual change perspective considers ‘concepts networks’ instead of isolated concepts, thus coming very close to the inferentialist idea of ‘space of reasons’ (Sellars, 1956) or the more situated ‘webs of reasons’ (Bakker & Derry, 2011).

6.6 Opportunities for Future Research

6.6.6

183

Truth and the Formation of Epistemic Beliefs

The broad question at this point is about when we accept the truth of something or, in other words, when do we take a piece of knowledge for valid. Such question pertains to people’s epistemic beliefs in a particular domain (Muis et al., 2006) and to how these are formed (Brandom, 2000). This is an important issue to further understand the ILTP. Indeed, earlier in this chapter, we suggested that the students and instructors’ epistemological beliefs may as much promote or hamper the quality of their participation in the social reasoning. Here we pointed, e.g., to the risk that the actors assess the truth of each others’ claims by appealing to authority (Dare & Girard, 2015), either formal or perceived, rather than engaging in the GoGAR. Beyond the outlined theories of Inferentialism and of Normative Pragmatism, Brandom (1994) also worked on a theory of the formation of beliefs as well as a theory of truth that smoothly flow into one another. This theory of truth, roughly, proposes ‘material inference’ as an alternative to formal logic; it is particularly relevant to further the conversational analyses, as it would allow to evaluate the extent to which the claims uttered during social reasoning make any sense. Entering the formation of beliefs and the assessment of truth escaped to the scope of the present book; for instance, we could not fully differentiate (a) theoretical claims that result from adopting others’ inferences from (b) speakers’ own theoretical judgements formed prior to the conversations, and from (c) theoretical judgements resulting from inferences made on the spot. Further research concerned with the formation of epistemic beliefs related to the truth or validity of knowledge, could lead to deeper insight into how the GoGAR proceeds and into its power to achieve a consolidated theory-practice integration. Research in this line requires, we propose, a substantial epistemological focus followed by an empirical investigation in a controlled setting (rather than a natural setting) and with a narrow scope (i.e., a tight yet flexible web of reasons); the latter considerations consider the appropriateness of the research design in relation to its aim, as well as its feasibility.

6.6.7

Inferentialist Perspective on Expertise Development

In the introductory section, we referred to existing knowledge linking theory-practice integration to expertise development (Tynjälä et al., 2003). Yet we took a particular perspective on integration (the inferentialist perspective) without applying the same perspective to expertise development. The question then raises whether the link still holds. This question opens an interesting opportunity to investigate the relationship between theory-practice integration and expertise development within an inferentialist framework. To this end, work done on ‘examining expertise using interviews and verbal protocols’ may constitute a valuable guidance (Van de Wiel, 2017). Also, insight into existing models on professional expertise development

184

6 Conclusion and Discussion

(e.g., stages of expertise development, deliberate practice and progressive problem solving), as reviewed by Tynjälä (2013), is key to understand what is at stake in this line of research and how expertise development has been conceptualised to present. Additionally, we suggest that particular attention is required regarding the idea of ‘over time’ in longitudinal investigations. From an inferentialist point of view the research design requires assumptions about some appropriate period for variations in responsiveness to manifest. With these precautions in mind, we contend that our operationalisation of the inferentialist framework (Chap. 5) is indicated for the study of expertise development among professionals at different stages in their careers.

6.6.8

Transfer of Theory and Practice through an Inferentialist Lens

In Chap. 1, we referred to the power of theory and practice to enrich each other, their integration being expected to promote transfer of what has been learnt to new environments (Tynjälä et al., 2003). Such proposed relationship between integration and transfer represents an opportunity and a call for further research. We contend that is feasible and conducive to study this relationship from an inferentialist perspective, using our operationalisation (either with modifications or not) of the inferentialist framework. It seems crucial, however, to consider thoroughly what the most appropriate and consistent conceptualisation of ‘transfer’ would be. We emphasise that is important not to fall into the trap of the so-called two-problem paradigm (Perkins & Salomon, 2012), also called the problem of ‘distance’ (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Such traditional perspective on transfer (which is based on a materialisation of knowledge that must be carried over from the learning context to a target context) that has too frequently failed to explain instances of transfer (Chi & VanLehn, 2012; Lobato, 2006; Perkins & Salomon, 2012). If we think about transfer in terms of generalisation, for instance, we could approach further research from different interest areas (be it through an inferentialist lens), such as (a) the distinction between situated and general reasons, and (b) the distinction between mechanistic and functional explanations. First, the interest in an inferentialist view on transfer resonates with Bakker and Akkerman’s (2014) concern about the characterisation of reasons in terms of them being predominantly situated or general. Such fine-grained purpose is expected to require a reduced scope (i.e., focus on a narrow topic) and extended mastery of the content from the side of the researcher. Nevertheless, we also expect difficulties in distinguishing ‘situated reasons’ from ‘general reasons’; consistent with the non-dualistic spirit, we are not inclined to propose that there are intrinsically different kinds of reasons, rather that reasons are used differently. Furthermore, the interest in an inferentialist view on transfer also resonates with hypotheses about mechanistic and functional explanations. Explaining a property ‘mechanistically’ roughly means that one appeals to

6.6 Opportunities for Future Research

185

parts and processes, while explaining a property ‘functionally’ roughly means that one appeals to functions and goals. Lombrozo and Gwynne (2014), suggest that mechanistic and functional explanations imply a different ability to generalise. In sum, the preceding paragraphs remind us that the ‘transfer of knowledge’ can be conceived in very different ways. Therefore, it is important to re-emphasise that further research efforts aiming to study transfer and integration jointly and from an inferentialist perspective, need to start by a thorough consideration of the most consistent conceptualisation of ‘transfer’. We propose that the ‘actor-oriented transfer perspective’ on transfer and its corresponding research method (Lobato, 2008, 2012) are consonant with the inferentialist view on theory-practice integration.

6.6.9

Measuring the Extent of the Theory-Practice Integration

An important next step would be to isolate the learning of the student, i.e., the extent of theory-practice integration, in order to measure it. So far, moreover, we have only focused on variation in patterns of responsiveness (in terms of comparison between two extreme data points), while the study of development over the same period promises to be more informative of progression throughout this period. Consistent with our inferentialist view on theory-practice integration, measuring the extent of such integration (this time as an output of a process) is equivalent to capturing a degree of responsiveness to theoretical and practical reasons or, in other terms, capturing a level of mastery of concepts. This involves grasping the complexity of chains of reasoning in terms of inferential roles and varied use of judgments (among other appropriate parameters). It also involves seizing in how far there are interactions such as, e.g., (a) concepts are used to inform goal-oriented practice, and (b) goal-oriented practice and the results thereof are used to enrich the meaning of concepts or to introduce the use of more encompassing concepts. For isolating the student outcome from the collective achievement of the participants in social reasoning, it seems reasonable to conduct a piece of research according to a pre-test/intervention/post-test design. Whereas the focus is on evaluating the students’ outcome, it may be very informative to subject the instructors to the same pre- and post-tests. The intervention would centre on a particular topic (limited scope) and the tests would proceed both in a simulated environment and through verbal questioning. In the former case, the student interacts with a process simulator (so the responses of the simulator and the difficulty of the further challenges basically depend on the initial performance of the student). In the later case, the verbal questioning will have to be somehow standardised (which represents an issue to resolve, as it is opposed to the inferentialist idea of the instructor unpacking the commitments behind the student’s claims on-the-spot). Existing studies on assessment of ‘knowledge integration’ in science (e.g., Liu et al., 2008), although not aligned with our framework and our conceptualisation of integration, provide

186

6 Conclusion and Discussion

inspiration and guidance. One important conclusion from those studies is that ‘explanation items’ are better at differentiating student science performance, if compared to multiple-choice items. Regarding the interest in measuring development or growth (concerning the extent to which a student has integrated theoretical and practical rationality), it is important to agree on what we take ‘development’ to be in educational research, beyond mere ‘variation’ and beyond mere ‘change’.

6.7

Implications for Research

Some of the implications mentioned in this subsection for being of interest to educational research, particularly in the domain of technical vocational education and training, are proposed to be relevant to education and instruction practice as well. First, we contended that it is important to understand how the epistemological perspectives on professional or vocational knowledge determine the conceptions on learning and its goal (see Chap. 2). Insights into such perspectives can assist researchers in making their own epistemological assumptions explicit at the outset of their research efforts; such assumptions constitute one of the cornerstones of their methodological approach. Furthermore, we advocate for the adoption of Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism as theoretical framework for further research on the theory-practice integration. This proposition finds theoretical and empirical support in the present book, i.e., supported by the conclusion that the non-dualistic, inferentialist ideas are (to the best of our knowledge) the most conducive to understanding the theorypractice integration (see Chap. 2), and supported by the actors’ predominant views on the nature and progress of integration in T-VET (see Chaps. 3 and 4). Eventually, educational research, curriculum planning, instructional design and everyday practice are best aligned to one another, in terms of being consistent with the same philosophy. Continuing research concerned with integration can borrow and build on the conceptualisations proposed in the present work in order to advance further. This book has coined a definition of the ITLP construct in terms of process and outcome aspects (see Chap. 4), as well as a conceptualisation of the ILTP as a network in which multiple actors collaborate, by embodying the relationships between distributed pieces of knowledge (see Chap. 3). These conceptions account for the views of micro-level actors in T-VET and are grounded on their interpersonal epistemologies. A further, though complementary, conceptualisation derives from the inferentialist framework (see Chap. 2) and proposes a view on the ILTP as a process of progressive social reasoning in which the students and instructors’ increasing responsiveness to theoretical and practical reasons results in enhanced mastery of concepts (see Chap. 5). We trust that continuing research on integration finds in this book not only a conceptualisation of integration that fits its particular purpose, but also a rationale for adopting it.

6.8 Implications for Education and Instruction

187

Moreover, the conceptualisations of the ILTP which emerged from the actors’ interpersonal epistemologies (see Chaps. 3 and 4), contribute to further research on integration by creating awareness and understanding of micro-level perspectives. Without this sensitivity to the research subjects’ conceptions and beliefs, researchers may disregard differences in conceptions and, in interpreting others through own preconceptions, generate biased conclusions. Also, the warning about overreliance on students’ autonomy (see Chap. 3) can have implications for further research. Indeed, we found that students seldom build integrating relationships alone and, instead, they are dependent on the availability of pieces of knowledge that are distributed amongst multiple agents in the workplace. Therefore, researchers concerned with the evaluation of achievements in integration, would rather look at the affordances of the context instead to seeking all plausible explanations for achievement (or failure to achieve) at the level of the learner. With this book we have advanced a novel inferentialist perspective on integration and the operationalisation of this perspective into a research tool (see Chap. 5). Indeed, the present work contributes to continuing research by showing the appropriateness of Inferentialism to frame the theory-practice integration, by providing both theoretical and empirical underpinning, and by offering an analytical instrument. Furthermore, our operationalisation of the inferentialist framework is available for educational research on integration in other instructional contexts or research with additional focuses of interest. As we discussed in the section dedicated to opportunities for future research, this operationalisation, we suggest, is not only appropriate for continuing research on ILTP but also to investigate the relationship of integration with, e.g., expertise development, transfer, and conceptual change. In each case, an adaption of the current operationalisation to the particular purposes may be required, as well as a thorough consideration of the theoretical perspective and framework adopted for each of these topics. Consistency with the inferentialist spirit is crucial. Finally, this work raises new questions and generates hypotheses that contribute to furthering the current understanding of the theory-practice integration. Earlier in this chapter, we advanced such emergent questions and hypotheses as opportunities for future research; here we offered justifications for the relevance of the topics, grounds for the generated hypotheses and guidelines for how to approach their investigation. We trust that other researchers feel triggered to further these lines of research and that they can build on the present work.

6.8

Implications for Education and Instruction

Our argument for the need of the present work effort has pointed to insufficient understanding of the meaning of the theory-practice integration, which prevents further development of theoretical models and, in its turn, further development of pedagogical approaches in technical vocational education and training. Throughout the chapters of this book, we have been building: first, a way to interpret the actors in

188

6 Conclusion and Discussion

the field at our level of interest and, second, a way to interpret the ILTP phenomenon through the inferentialist lens. These paths culminated in a regard on the process of integration with the potential to provide more robust underpinning to new instructional designs. Based on the insights generated in this book, in the present section we propose a series of implications for education and instruction, that are concerned with the theory-practice integration, in the CPT context and in the broader T-VET. Subsequently, we discuss plausible implications for education and instruction more broadly. Whenever appropriate, we derive general guidelines from these implications. However, before actual implementation, still a design step is required to translate these guidelines into workable instructions.

6.8.1

For Those Concerned with the ILTP in T-VET

It is important to understand that the epistemological perspectives inevitably shape the conceptions on how people learn and the conception of what the goal of such learning should be (see Chap. 2). Therefore, practitioners can benefit from having some knowledge of what the (historically and currently coexisting) perspectives are, so to be able to position and acknowledge their own view on learning and on professional or vocational knowledge. This is equivalent to making explicit the assumptions that underlie their curriculum plans, instructional designs, and everyday instructional practice. Furthermore, given that not all perspectives are equally conducive to the theory-practice integration, we advocate for the adoption of an inferentialist epistemology, whenever integration is the goal practitioners wish to strive for. For example, the practitioners could attend a learning module about ‘epistemology in educational practice’ which provides them insights into the most important frameworks, while teaching them the skills to analyse their views and practices in the light of such frameworks. In the same line, next to the aforementioned high-level epistemological perspectives, this work has created more awareness and understanding of other’s perspectives at the micro-level (Chap. 3). A sensitivity to the conceptions and beliefs of people around us (e.g., students and colleagues) may facilitate the integrative learning processes of the students. For instance, rather than presuming that certain individuals or groups hold naïve epistemic beliefs, practitioners could try to discover to what extent others regard theoretical and practical knowledge in a non-dichotomous way (and how they developed such views). Also, the finding about people’s co-existing perspectives on integration (ref. Chap. 4), raises awareness of prevailing conceptions (i.e., ‘between-integration’ and ‘within-integration’) that appear to be as much opposed as intertwined. Embracing different views may lead to more congruence and to a balance between the needs of the various actors and may trigger continuing dialogue and negotiation of epistemic assumptions, without ever losing the constructive tension.

6.8 Implications for Education and Instruction

189

The conclusion that the students’ theoretical and practical reasoning is often mediated by the guidance of others who are (assumed to be) more knowledgeable (Chap. 3), also implies that students may experience difficulties integrating theory and practice if left to reason on their own. Indeed, the students may not be able to compensate the lack of reasoning exchanges by performing other kind of tasks (e.g., written assignments) without further discussion. In other words, the students are likely to achieve greater mastery of concepts when those concepts have been discussed inferentially with others (Chap. 5). In sum, the quality and quantity of mediation are expected to promote the ILTP; continuing research is needed to establish whether any increase in responsiveness can effectively be attributed to the quality and quantity of mediation, and to determine the size of such effect. Such sufficient quantity and quantity of mediation can be related to several aspects of curriculum plans and instructional design, as well as to how the instructors eventually implement those at ‘chalk face’ (Chaps. 3 and 5). The quantity of mediation mainly refers to the time available (i.e., curricula with a feasible content scope that allows for depth in learning rather than breath), accompanied by a sound sequencing of topics. The quality of mediation may also be related to instructional design, in terms of opportunities for the students to encounter various interlocutors from different disciplines and with different approaches to the same topic. Finally, the quality of mediation certainly concerns both the ability and the willingness of all actors to engage in social reasoning. In its turn, such ‘ability to engage in social reasoning’ refers to the individuals’ knowledge base (or ‘web of reasons’), their logical thinking skills (i.e., a capacity to make inferences rather than mere associations), and their capacity to cope with complexity (seeing clearly through collateral assertions) to assess the validity of knowledge claims. The ‘willingness to engage in social reasoning’ refers to each one’s conviction about the relevance of integration (part of their personal epistemology), their conviction about the effectiveness of social reasoning to contribute to such integration, their preference for validity assessment of claims in terms of their content rather than by appealing to dogmas or authorities (also part of their personal epistemologies), and their proficiency in playing the ‘game of giving and asking for reasons’ (including the humbleness to accept others’ questioning the content of our claims and even our attributions to make such claims). Finally, the quality of participation in social reasoning is expected to be related to the motivational and affective aspects of learning as well (although further research still needs to clarify in what way these aspects intervene). Also, the integration of theory and practice appears as a collaborative enterprise, as the pieces of knowledge that need to be integrated are distributed amongst multiple agents (Chap. 3). But as mentioned above, if the theory-practice integration partially depends on the knowledge base of the actors involved (Chap. 3), then this integration may be hampered by lack of knowledge availability. There may be several reasons why (certain) knowledge is unavailable. If, for example, the issue concerns knowledge sharing in the workplace, the organisations ought to invest additional efforts in their knowledge management strategy and system. Alternatively, the issue may be rooted in knowledge being privileged to some upper

190

6 Conclusion and Discussion

organisational level, while the first line operational teams are deprived from such knowledge. Either a poor access to knowledge is deliberate or not, the student appears to be highly dependent on others. This implies a need to question the assumed and expected autonomy of the student (and future operator) in their process of integrative learning. Concurrently, this implies that the affordances (e.g., Billett, 2002) of the workplace may play a more important role than expected; such affordances become instruments to facilitate the process of integration. The description of the ILTP in terms of its process and outcome aspects (Chap. 4), may assist practitioners in raising awareness of what characterises such process and outcome, so that no aspect is left unattended. The six proposed dimensions, moreover, may be used to position the own designs and practices as they develop. Such self-positioning along each dimension invites practitioners to reconsider the kind of integrative process and outcome they aim for and confronts them with potential gaps. For example, an instructor wishing to reflect on how their approach affects the ‘locus of learning’ (a process dimension) may acknowledge that their approach is closer to the ‘individual’ extreme, while the instructional design is conceived to be closer to the ‘collective’ extreme. This instructor then needs to reconsider either their actual practice or the goal and take some action to close the gap accordingly. The ILTP appears, to some extent, as a natural phenomenon which is likely to occur without the intervention of any particular learning programme (Chap. 5). This does not imply that the integration proceeds equally without any deliberate attention; rather that practitioners now can distinguish key facilitators from other aspects and can assign priorities accordingly. The non-key features of the ILTP still need to be nourished, i.e., the prominent versatility of theoretical judgements to play all kinds of inferential roles (thus participating in justifications, extensions, and critiques), and the capacity of practical reasoning to contribute to responsiveness (including the tendency of speakers to seek explanations for why practical actions may be necessary, rather than simply accepting them). On the other hand, key features that deserve priority pertain, as noted before, to the quantity and quality of participation and engagement in social reasoning; here we re-emphasise the importance of facilitation based on the conclusion that the simultaneous use of various inferential roles appears to be significantly challenging for all the actors involved (Chap. 5). In Chap. 5, we also presented the implications for education and instruction, in terms of guidelines that particularly concern the CPT context (and that we do not reproduce here). In Sect. 6.6.2, moreover, we elaborate on how each recommendation emerges from our findings in this context. In so doing, we show that these guidelines for pedagogy innovation are grounded in our systematic and fine-grained analysis of the process of integration and therefore, we contend, contribute to pedagogy innovation from the bottom. Next to their empirical bases, our guidelines are in line with Derry’s (2017) reading of Brandom’s Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism and, in particular, in line with their meaning for education. For example, regarding the actors challenging each other, rather than only the student being challenged:

6.8 Implications for Education and Instruction

191

We may only focus on what we are committing ourselves to when an interlocutor challenges our application of a concept. The challenge may take the form of a direct questioning of our particular usage of a concept but it is normally part of a conversation whereby we each [our emphasis] make fine adjustments to how we use a concept over the course of the dialogue to communicate in the first place. This, incidentally, is central to the experience of teaching as our understanding of a knowledge domain is actualised or even grasped fully for the first time by the very act of attempting to communicate. (Derry, 2017, p. 412)

Additionally, in referring to the experience of teaching, the latter citation supports the idea that, while our research topic has emphasised the ‘integrative learning’ (either at an individual or a collective level), the implications of this work can be found just as much on the ‘integrative teaching and instruction’.

6.8.2

Recommendations Based on our Empirical Work

The following is a translation of our findings (Chap. 5) into guidelines for instructional designers and educational practitioners. These guidelines do not intend to provide concrete nor exhaustive prescriptions for pedagogical practice but, instead, to draw meta-conclusions that can create awareness about how to promote the theory-practice integration in T-VET. Background: The patterns of social reasoning among students and their instructors in this context, shows only moderate variation throughout the study programme. One may need to de-emphasise any overreliance on the power of the evaluative-formative sessions to integrate theory and practice (or to make such integration explicit). The simultaneous presence of both instructors (and their actual participation in the discursive exchange) does not automatically guarantee such pursued integration. Recommendation: It seems necessary to question whether the integration of theory and practice is genuinely one of the goals of the learning programme and whether this view is shared by all actors. If integration withstands this challenge, then the instructional design of the programme needs to be revised. Among other areas of concern, revision is required of (a) the role and actual participation of each instructor and (b) the content of the programme in terms of its extent, depth, and sequencing. Background: Theory steadily participates in reasoning already from the outset of the programme. One plausible explanation for the virtual lack of variation, relates to the contents discussed during the formative-evaluative sessions observed: rather than closely building on previously discussed content (in order, for example,

192

6 Conclusion and Discussion

to deepen, to expand or to revisit former concepts), each session mainly attempts to address new topics thus allowing little room for growing mastery of a more reduced scope. This reinforces the use of declarative knowledge (i.e., theoretical judgements that originate from adopted beliefs and prior reasoning), instead of theoretical judgements that are inferred on the spot. Recommendation: If we are to exploit discursive reasoning, more focus is needed on a smaller number of concepts or more time should be made available to revisit previously discussed content. Background: Practical judgements, however scarce, are virtually always used inferentially, i.e., practical considerations add value to increasingly branched webs of reasons thus enhancing responsiveness in terms of growing mastery of concepts and. This property of practical judgements is present from the outset in all cases and, in some cases, it shows an increment over time. In all, this seams to be a ‘natural’ phenomenon, rather than necessarily the effect of the learning programme on the triad. Recommendation: Maintain the ‘natural’ capacity of practice to contribute to responsiveness, rather than taking it for granted. Acknowledge and nourish the power of practice. Background: There is quite an extensive use of compatibility relations that, moreover, almost always remain unnoticed. This indicates that the normative aspects of the discourse are subordinated. The speakers are not proficient in playing the GoGAR (the game of giving and asking for reasons), as they often simply accept each others’ statements; they regularly fail to challenge each other and to question each others’ entitlements to make particular judgements. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is, again, a lack of focus or a lack of time. This may be reinforced by an inherent difficulty to identify compatibility relations in the rush of a conversation. On the other hand, the relevance of compatibility relations appears to diminish over time (albeit not homogeneously for all triads), with a concurrent growth in predominance of inferential relations. This shows the potential of the speakers to participate more fully in the discursive reasoning over time and to become more advanced GoGAR players. Recommendation: If we are to promote the use of inferential relations (i.e., promoting reasoning), deliberate identification of compatibilities and incompatibilities should be exercised; more thoughtful GoGAR playing is recommended.

6.8 Implications for Education and Instruction

193

Background: Beyond any quantitative comparison, both theoretical and practical judgements appear to have the power to justify (i.e., to claim what a given proposition logically follows from) and the power to advance implications (i.e., to claim what logically follows from a given proposition). This means that webs of reason can benefit from both theoretical and practical judgements to grow in complexity in any direction around concepts. Recommendation: Exploit this property of theoretical and practical judgements in order to foster mastery of concepts (i.e., understanding the concept’s multiple connections to other concepts) in multiple directions (rather than linearly, e.g., only the amplative one) and from multiple perspectives (rather than narrowed to e.g., only the theoretical one). Background: The critical role appears subordinated in predominance if compared to other inferential roles. Moreover, speakers appeal more often to theory than to practice when they point to an incompatibility and wish to give reasons for this doing. Such poor engagement in critical discourse may reflect poor engagement in the GoGAR, i.e., responsiveness not functioning at its full capacity. Here speakers accept beliefs and non-inferential arguments, thus constructing a weak web of reasons or simply failing to construct it. It seems also that theory, if compared to practice, is often considered to carry more truth (i.e., to have more authority); so the theory is more often used as ground to contradict a previous claim. Concurrently, the power of practice to refute a given claim seems to be left quite unexploited. Recommendation: Engage in deliberate critical discourse and in deliberate use of all available resources in order to fully exploit the richness of all kinds of arguments and the power of the GoGAR to build cogent and solid webs of reasons. Background: The tendency to engage in critical judgement may be dependent, at least partially, on the properties of the triad (i.e., on the group dynamics, rather than simply dependent on the properties of the individual triad members). The use of critical judgement in social reasoning (a constituent of responsiveness) may be promoted by acting on features of the group such as cultural background and power relations. Recommendation 1: Minimise any power relations within the triads (particularly between the two instructors) and ensure that the differences in the members’ roles are perceived as the triads’ richness, so that they are used constructively.

194

6 Conclusion and Discussion

Recommendation 2: Even the student should be seen as an equal GoGAR player, who is not subordinated to the instructors. To this end, we suggest that it is helpful to revise the relevance given to the different purposes of the triads’ encounters; the net perception should be that of a formative session rather than that of an evaluative one. Background: The distinctive versatility of theoretical judgements to play all inferential roles confers these judgements a key position in the construction of webs of reasoning, and thus a key position in growing responsiveness. This importance of theoretical judgements does not necessarily imply that they are, more than other kinds of judgments, responsible for the structure of chains of reasoning. Remember that practical judgements are used inferentially too. Recommendation: Attention to theory and deliberate appeal to theory during social reasoning are recommended, whenever increasing mastery of concepts is aimed for. Background: The practical judgements present a tendency to play primarily an amplative role, and this tendency becomes more frequent over time (in some cases). In other words, utterances about intentions to act and purposes tend to be used in social reasoning as inferential consequences. This suggests that the intentions to act and purposes themselves are seen as the corollary of a preceding reason (or chain of reasons). Putting it inversely, speakers seek to explain why a practical action or purpose is necessary or useful, rather than simply accepting that it must be done. This is equivalent to ‘acting for a reason’ and, therefore, part of being responsive. Recommendation: Nourish this tendency to give the reasons for practical actions and purposes to fight against mechanistic behaviour and to persistently couple knowledge to procedures. Yet there is a threat of overzealous explanation. Therefore, use critical judgements and, more generally, play the GoGAR appropriately to avoid weak or bad arguments; sometimes it may be necessary to accept uncertainty instead of attributing incompatibilities. Background: Social reasoning is often simultaneously justificatory, amplative and critical, rather than it following linear ways of thinking. Social reasoning (i.e., GoGAR playing) appears as a challenging and even overwhelming activity. We suggest that the successful inferential integration of theoretical and practical judgements depends on the quality and quantity of participation of the speakers, on the time available and on the extent of the scope. The process of integration needs to be facilitated. In particular, regarding the quality and quantity of participation: These

6.8 Implications for Education and Instruction

195

speakers, moreover, have very different position towards each other (i.e., student versus instructor) and very different individual knowledge background. In normative pragmatist terms, and using the idea of ‘scorekeeping’, these speakers’ entitlements and commitments receive a very different score. Recommendation: Ensure that all triad members participate as equals in social reasoning: (a) encourage engagement and participation, (b) break the hierarchical roles of the members, (c) create the perception that the goal is to strengthen the triad’s web of reasons rather than evaluating the student. Additionally, consider the amount of content relative to the time available as a critical factor in the instructional design. Further Resources for Practitioners Several projects conducted in recent years (European Commission, 2018), deal with work-based learning approaches and, therefore, connect to some extent to the present work. One example is the course ‘Work-Based Learning and Dual Education System’ (Erasmus Learning Academy, 2021), which aims to foster excellence in education by empowering teachers, trainers, and other education staff to integrate work-based learning into traditional learning pathways. Another example is the ‘Work-Based Learning Toolkit’ (NetWBL, 2016), which is intended to facilitate an effective network between actors concerned with vocational and university education (at micro, meso and macro levels). This web platform provides extensive materials from relevant educational research projects and best practices, that are useful for the development and implementation of work-based learning and apprentice training. The latter includes a focus on the role teachers, trainers, mentors, job instructors play in achieving quality work-based learning (NetWBL, 2014).

6.8.3

Broader Implications

Up to this point, the discussed implications targeted particularly those who are concerned with the theory-practice integration in CPT and in the broader T-VET. Subsequently, we highlight a number of implications for vocational education and instruction more generally. The following implications find support in our research and are aligned with prior works on ‘inferentialism and education’ (Derry, 2016) and on ‘learning across contexts’ (Guile, 2006). These concern: vocational curriculum and vocational pedagogy, powerful interventions, and the role of the instructor. Regarding vocational curriculum and vocational pedagogy, the foremost implication concerns the importance of privileging the inferential over the representational. This requires a shift from a curriculum based on the notion of representation (i.e., concepts as abstractions from the world, with a fixed meaning) to a curriculum based on the notion of inferentialism (i.e., concepts as cultural tools that allow us to act in the world, and whose meaning is in constant development) (Guile, 2006). In its turn, this results in a shift on how we learn, from a focus on the acquisition of

196

6 Conclusion and Discussion

representations, to a focus on mastering concepts. In other words, attention is needed to the interrelation of knowledge and the process of learning, rather than sticking to the idea that learners construct meaning prior to inference and out of raw data. Furthermore, all forms of learning presuppose the social practice of reasoning, rather than conceiving of practice-based learning as demanding a different pedagogy from theoretical learning. Here, concepts are best conceived as resources to appraise practice critically (rather than something we apply in practice). In the everyday practice, such implications are enacted by making things explicit, rather than alluding to a mere (verbal) representations. In the same spirit, it can be expected that the systematic interrogation of the learner’s understanding, be it through tutoring, mentoring or peer feedback constitute a powerful intervention for learning achievement (Derry, 2016). Powerful interventions involve, firstly, the inferential articulation of concept use (i.e., making meaning explicit); secondly that the instructors’ truly attend to what learners say, while unpacking learners’ attempts to articulate what they understand (ibid). This is key. It concerns the instructor taking the learner’s utterances seriously and unpacking the commitments behind, showing the learner what they have committed themselves to by making certain claim (and showing what is entailed by their commitments); it also concerns paying close attention to the learner’s reasoning while teaching the learner to think (this does not occur when the instructors’ questioning fails to delve into what lies behind learners’ responses). In this context, there is less tendency to talk about ‘misconceptions’: often a judgement about one speaker being wrong, is a judgement about truth without considering the circumstances from which the statements arise when assessing its validity. For example, a student wonders whether the relative position of two carboxylic groups in a molecule influences the molecule’s polarity. The very question gives evidence of insight into organic chemistry. However, the student cannot find the word ‘symmetry’ on-thespot to express their question and, instead, talks about the molecule’s ‘centre of gravity’. An instructor that does not engage with the student’s reasoning may consider such utterance as a misconception. If the instructor engages with the student, they may allow more time to think, ask an additional question or pronounce a critical judgment (so to guide the student to the concept of symmetry). The instructor’s judgement plays a crucial role in promoting the conditions for effective learning. Indeed, the instructors need to be sensitive to the inferential connections that constitute concepts, (including the norms that regulate the use of any concept in a particular knowledge domain). This sensitivity will inform instructors about: how to approach a topic, the extent of dialogue and modelling that required in each case, the expectations of what learners can achieve. Such sensitivity is a kind of ‘practical wisdom’ or phronesis, in Aristotle’s terms (Matusov et al., 2019), i.e., a capacity to produce appropriate responses on-the-spot in instances where clear cut rules may not be appropriate. This requires qualities of listening, respect for the individuals who make up the learning environment, and an interest in engaging with their reasoning (taking utterances seriously and unpacking the commitments behind).

References

6.9

197

Final Reflection

As stated in the introduction to this book, the aim was to investigate the integration of theory and practice, and to conceptualise integrative learning with the purpose of contributing to resolving an omission problem (that has been precluding further pedagogical advancements in professional learning) and, in doing so, to provide new grounds for the further advancement of integrative pedagogical approaches. This means that the primary purpose of our work has been to make a pedagogical contribution that eventually raises awareness and offers general recommendations for practitioners (i.e., instructional designers and instructors). We addressed this issue from a conviction that a non-dualistic perspective on theory and practice would be conducive to the ends of this book. We found such perspective in Brandom’s inferentialist and normative pragmatist theories and presented a rationale for adopting these views for our methodological framework. The inferentialist ideas were used consistently, not only as a perspective and methodological framework, but also as an analytical framework. Indeed, we advanced an operationalisation that allowed us to translate such epistemological, semantic and pragmatist scene into specific, observable terms. We put to use this operationalisation in all further stages of our investigation. Therefore, we can now point to the philosophical note of our study. This means that the secondary purpose or our work has been to test whether the study of theory-practice integration could effectively be achieved using our operationalisation of Brandom’s theories (i.e., to show the appropriateness of Inferentialism to frame integration). We claim that our results show the appropriateness of the framework employed and, therefore, we wish to advance our use of this framework as a contribution to educational research. It is in this operationalisation that the novelty of this work resides; to the best of our knowledge all previous research only appealed to Inferentialism as a reflection tool, while in this book steps have been made to put it to use as a research tool.

References Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132–169. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590–617. Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from Inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 5–26. Bakker, A., & Akkerman, S. F. (2014). A boundary-crossing approach to support students’ integration of statistical and work-related knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 223–237. Bakker, A., & Hußmann, S. (2017). Inferentialism in mathematics education: Introduction to a special issue. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 395–401.

198

6 Conclusion and Discussion

Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Huettel, L. G., & Linnenbrink-García, L. (2016). Developmental changes in college engineering students’ personal epistemology profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 1–8. Beckett, D. (2000). Making workplace learning explicit: An epistemology of practice for the whole person. Westminster Studies in Education, 23(1), 41–53. Billett, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement. Adult Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171302237202 Billett, S. (2009). Personal epistemologies, work and learning. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.001 Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press. Brandom, R. (1995). Knowledge and the social articulation of the space of reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55(4), 895–908. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7–26. Causton, E. (2019). Bringing inferentialism to science education. Science & Education, 1–19. Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge. Crossley, M., & Vulliamy, G. (1984). Case-Study research methods and comparative education. Comparative Education, 20(2), 193–207. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from www.jstor.org/ stable/3098564 Dare, T., & Girard, P. (2015). Logical and critical thinking. The University of Auckland. Future Learn. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking. Accessed on September 28, 2015. de Brabander, C. J., & Rozendaal, J. S. (2007). Epistemological beliefs, social status, and school preference: An exploration of relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 141–162. Derry, J. (2016). Inferentialism and education. In Philosophy of education society of Great Britain annual conference, New College, Oxford, pp. 1–3. Derry, J. (2017). An introduction to inferentialism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 403–418. Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition (No. ORC-80-2). California University Berkeley Operations Research Center. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136. Erasmus Learning Academy. (2021). Erasmus training courses. Work-based learning and dual education system. Retrieved May 10 2021, from https://www.erasmustrainingcourses.com/dualeducation-and-work-based-learning.html European Commission. (2018). Erasmus+ Programme (EPLUS) projects & results. Retrieved May 10, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportuni ties/projects-results;programCode¼EPLUS Fernandes, F. A. N. (2002). Use of process simulators for the unit operations education of undergraduate chemical engineers. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 10(3), 155. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine-Atherton. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2012). Constructivist grounded theory? Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 28–38.

References

199

Guile, D. (2006). Learning across contexts. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 251–268. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy (Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Heusdens, W. T., Bakker, A., Baartman, L. K. J., & De Bruijn, E. (2016). Contextualising vocational knowledge: A theoretical framework and illustrations from culinary education. Vocations and Learning, 9(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9145-0 Heinz, W. R. (2008). Occupational socialisation. In F. Rauner, R. Maclean, & R. (Eds.), Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (Vol. 49). Springer. Hiim, H. (2017). Ensuring curriculum relevance in vocational education and training: Epistemological perspectives in a curriculum research project. International journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 4(1), 1–19. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Routledge. Hußmann, S., Schacht, F., & Schindler, M. (2018). Tracing conceptual development in mathematics: Epistemology of webs of reasons. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1–17. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishing. Klotz, V. K., Billett, S., & Winther, E. (2014). Promoting workforce excellence: Formation and relevance of vocational identity for vocational educational training. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-014-0006-0 Liu, O. L., Lee, H., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct. Measures, and Evidence, Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449. Lobato, J. (2008). Research methods for alternative approaches to transfer: Implications for design experiments. In Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. Routledge. Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232–247. Loeffler, R. (2018). Brandom. Key contemporary thinkers. Polity Press. Lombrozo, T., & Gwynne, N. Z. (2014). Explanation and inference: Mechanistic and functional explanations guide property generalization. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 700. Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., Kullenberg, T., & Curtis, K. (2019). Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 7, E20–E62. McDowell, J. (1986). Singular thought and the extent of inner space. In P. Pettit & J. McDowell (Eds.), Subject, thought, and context (pp. 137–168). Oxford University Press. Morrison, R., & Boyd, R. (1989). Organic chemistry (5th ed.). New York University. Mortelmans, D. (2007). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethode [Manual of qualitative research methods]. Acco. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54. NetWBL. (2016). Work-based learning toolkit. Retrieved May 10, 2021, from https://www.wbltoolkit.eu/index.php?id¼3 NetWBL. (2014). Intermediate report on work based learning needs and gaps. Retrieved May 10, 2021, from http://www.erasmusplus.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/3_NetWBL_WBL_ Needsgaps.pdf Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258. Rauner, F., Maclean, R., & Boreham, N. (2008). Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (Vol. 49): Springer.

200

6 Conclusion and Discussion

Reader, S. (2008). Vocational identity. In F. Rauner, R. Maclean, & R. (Eds.), Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (Vol. 49). Springer. Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psychology. The study of “what happens” rather than “what is”. European Psychologist, 13(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.37 Ruspini, E. (2002). Introduction to longitudinal research. Routledge. Säljö, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029030 Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. Sammons, P., & Davis, S. (2017). Mixed methods approaches and their application in educational research. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, & L. E. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/Sage handbook of educational research (p. 1). Sage. Sellars, W. S. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. Schommer-Aikins, M., Mau, W.-C., Brookhart, S., & Hutter, R. (2000). Understanding middle students’ beliefs about knowledge and learning using a multidimensional paradigm. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598750 Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Taylor, S. D., Noorloos, R., & Bakker, A. (2017). Mastering as an inferentialist alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 769–784. Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2003). Hindsight, foresight and insight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(3), 233–244. Toselli, L., Guerrero, M., Monesterolo, V., & Beltrán, R. (2009). Aplicación del Simulador ChemCAD en la Enseñanza en Carreras de Ingeniería (Spanish). Formación Universitaria, 2(3), 19. Tynjälä, P., Välimaa, J., & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education, 46(2), 147–166. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.12.001 Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z Van de Wiel, M. W. (2017). Examining expertise using interviews and verbal protocols. Frontline Learning Research, 5(3), 112–140. Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers & Education, 64, 153–160. van Rossum, E. J., & Hamer, R. N. (2010). The meaning of learning and knowing. Sense. Verschaffel, L., de Corte, E., de Jong, T., & Elen, J. (Eds.). (2010). Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement. Routledge. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2009). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thought and language 1934 (rev. ed.). MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky. Vol. 1 of Problems of general psychology, including the volume Thinking and speech. Springer. Whitten, K. W., Gailey, K. D., & Davis, R. E. (1988). General chemistry: Manual. Saunders College Publishing. Winch, C. (2010). Dimensions of expertise. Continuum. Winch, C. (2013). Curriculum design and epistemic ascent. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(1), 128–146. Young, M. (2003). Durkheim, Vygotsky and the curriculum of the future. London Review of Education, 1(2), 100–117.

Summary

In everyday life, people often refer to theory and practice in terms of types of knowledge, while problematising the distance between them. Would this distance disappear if we changed our conceptions of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’? People commonly assume it to be normal that practice does not match theory. Would such a mismatch be resolved if we changed our criteria to assess knowledge validity? Also, there is an extended idea that practical knowledge alone can make things work, while theoretical knowledge alone can provide reasons for why and how something works. Is it then possible to reconcile theory and practice at all? Or should we abandon any attempt to integrate them? And why would we be interested in integrating them in the first place? Educational practitioners and researchers widely recognise the relevance of theory-practice integration for rendering learning more insightful, for promoting more effective use of such insights in professional life, and for being a crucial ingredient for the development of expertise. Integration is often referred to, both overtly and implicitly, as a determinant factor in technical vocational education and training (T-VET), in areas such as alternating school-based and work-based education, school-to-work transitions, workplace learning in general, professional growth and expertise development. However, to date, the mutual relationship between theory and practice has not been satisfactorily described. What does such integrated theory-practice look like? And how do we develop such integration? Do we first learn one, then the other and eventually blend them together or bridge them somehow? Is the focus on what is distinctive about theory and practice responsible for creating the problem of integration and the need to solve it? Is the counterreaction that ignores this distinction any more conducive? It appears to be crucial to adopt an epistemological perspective on vocational or professional knowledge that is conducive to generating new insights into integration, because such a perspective is expected to have implications for curriculum design, for the perception of curric-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7

201

202

Summary

ulum relevance, for actual educational practices, and for research concerned with the integration of theory and practice. It becomes clear that several ontological and epistemological questions can be raised concerning the integrative learning of theory and practice. However, many instructors, instructional designers, educational researchers, and policy makers have rushed into finding solutions to the integration problem without asking themselves about the meaning of ‘theory’, ‘practice’ and ‘integration’, nor about how this integration progresses. For example, there are important integrative pedagogy models that propose activities and resources to facilitate integration; however, such models do not seem to rest on elaborated conceptualisations of ‘integration’, nor on how such integration may develop over time. Such fundamentals seem to have been omitted or at least not made explicit. We refer to this as an ‘omission problem’ which seems to be preventing further pedagogical advancements, in particular in T-VET. These pedagogical advances are needed if education is to embrace the new challenges imposed by rapidly changing societal and technological advances. We contend that new research efforts are required to (a) propose a perspective on theory and practice that recognises their distinctive and joint value, (b) conceptualise the relationship between theory and practice, (c) provide evidence that such a relationship is feasible, and (d) describe how this relationship evolves (or at least varies) over time. Together, these elements are expected to provide more solid ground for new pedagogical advances and, therefore, constitute a contribution to educational research and practice. It has been the aim of this book to make such contribution. This book concerns the integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP), its exploration, conceptualisation, and description. The aim is to enhance the understanding of what integration means, in a particular context part of T-VET. It further aims to advance a description of how the integrative learning develops (in terms of variations over time), when seen through an inferentialist, non-dualistic epistemological lens. Such a perspective nourishes the idea that theory and practice should be distinguished at an analytical level only, while refraining from providing a priori definitions of theory and practice as intrinsically different forms of knowledge. In considering the aforementioned omission problem and its implications for education, this book inquires into what constitutes the ILTP and how it develops. This question is addressed through an initial theoretical approach and subsequent empirical investigations at a micro-level of instruction, in the context of Chemical Processing Technology (CPT). This context was selected for being strongly concerned with the theory-practice integration and for providing the right conditions to study the integration phenomenon. Such instructional context consists of educational programmes at post-secondary and higher education levels, according to an alternating school-based and work-based learning approach (the latter using a cognitive-apprenticeship method). The graduates from these programmes qualify

Summary

203

as process operators in the chemical processing industries and such professionals are often considered knowledge workers. This work is organised into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces and situates the topic of theory-practice integration and discusses its relevance. Chapter 2 presents a literature study that deals with perspectives on professional and vocational knowledge, and presents Brandom’s theories of Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism, along with their relation to learning and instruction. Chapter 3 deals with the broad research methodology, i.e., makes explicit the ontological and epistemological assumptions that informed our methodological choices, provides the overall rationale for the research design, offers the rationale for the selection of CPT as the empirical context, and describes the empirical context and settings (thus contributing to the inferential generalisation of the research findings). In their turn, Chaps. 4 and 5 correspond to empirical investigations in the CPT context. While Chap. 4 reports on two studies that followed a data-driven approach (the grounded theory method) with the purpose of conceptualising the ILTP construct (basically in terms of epistemological beliefs), Chap. 5 pertains to a theory-driven investigation that deals with integration in terms of social reasoning (thus focusing on verbal exchanges). Additionally, Chap. 5 offers our operationalisation of the inferentialist theory. Finally, Chap. 6 draws the relationship between the individual studies, and presents the overall conclusion and discussion. This final chapter also elaborates on the implications, limitations, and opportunities for further research. The table at the end of this summary presents a complete overview of all the studies in this book. In all, each study in this book addresses its topic and purposes through its own lens, and according to an interdisciplinary approach. Together, the studies seek to build a line of research that is conducive to unravelling the ILTP. This line begins by paying attention to the epistemological roots of the problem (the philosophical lens) and continues with a concern for people’s epistemological beliefs (focusing on the psychological aspects of such beliefs). Along this line, which addresses the topic of integrative learning with a particular interest in the micro-level of instruction, different aspects of learning are explored to finally concentrate on the cognitive process, be it both individual and collaborative, in terms of social reasoning. Concurrently, there are related topics, disciplines, and perspectives that this book inevitably leaves unexplored, and that represent interesting paths for continuing research. Additionally, the present work has limitations that relate to (1) the extent of generalisability, (2) the natural empirical setting and (3) the evaluation of the student’s ILTP process and outcome. Directions for continuing research to address these issues are provided. A series of plausible implications for education and instruction are proposed, in particular for those who are concerned with the theory-practice integration in CPT and comparable contexts in the broader T-VET. The findings suggest that practitioners can benefit from having some knowledge about epistemological perspectives (to raise awareness of their own view of learning and of professional or vocational

204

Summary

knowledge), as these assumptions underlie their curriculum plans, instructional designs and everyday instructional practice. Furthermore, it is expected that the practitioners’ adoption of a non-dualistic, inferentialist epistemology will promote the theory-practice integration particularly. Also, given that the quality and quantity of mediation (during theoretical and practical reasoning) are expected to promote the ILTP, practitioners now know that students are likely to achieve greater mastery of concepts when those concepts have been discussed inferentially with others. Additionally, the description of the ILTP (in terms of the various dimensions that characterise it as a process and as an outcome) provides practitioners with an instrument to: (1) position their own designs and practices as they actually develop, (2) reconsider the kind of integrative process and outcome they aim for, and (3) plan how to close the potential gaps. Also, the knowledge about the ILTP aspects that require deliberate attention (while other aspects tend to occur more naturally) implies that practitioners can now identify key facilitators and assign priorities accordingly. For example, it seems crucial to facilitate participation and engagement in social reasoning, given that the simultaneous use of various inferential roles appears to be overwhelming for all the actors involved. Broader plausible implications are not limited to the CPT context but pertain to T-VET more generally and concern: (1) vocational curriculum and pedagogy, (2) powerful interventions, and (3) the role of the instructor’s judgement. Firstly, regarding the vocational curriculum and pedagogy, the foremost implication concerns the importance of privileging the inferential over the representational. Secondly, regarding interventions, it can be expected that instructors’ systematic interrogation of the student’s understanding constitutes a powerful intervention for learning achievement (provided that such interventions involve the inferential articulation of concepts in use, as well as the instructors’ true engagement with the students’ reasoning). Thirdly, the role of the instructor’s judgement appears to be key for effective learning; the instructors need to be sensitive to the inferential connections that constitute concepts in order to produce appropriate responses on-the-spot, in instances where clear cut rules may not be appropriate. Many of the implications of interest to education and instruction practice, are also proposed to be relevant to education research, particularly in the domain of T-VET. For example, researchers also need to understand how the epistemological perspectives on professional or vocational knowledge determine the conceptions of learning and the very goal of learning. Insights into such perspectives can assist researchers in making their own epistemological assumptions explicit at the outset of their research design. Furthermore, adopting Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism as a theoretical framework for further research on theory-practice integration, is here proposed as the most conducive approach. In proposing a novel inferentialist perspective on integration, this work contributes to the continuing research, (1) by showing the appropriateness of Inferentialism to frame the theory-practice integration, (2) by providing both theoretical and empirical underpinning for the adoption

Summary

205

of such a perspective, and (3) by offering its operationalisation as an analytical instrument. Finally, this work raises new questions and generates hypotheses, while expecting that other researchers will feel triggered to further the current understanding of the theory-practice integration. Several interesting opportunities for future research emerge from this work. Such research opportunities are discussed, including a justification of their relevance (to different stakeholders) and suggestions for how to address them. These discussions have in common the advice to continue building on the inferentialist framework, either by further stretching its possibilities, or by combining it with other research lines and methods. Some of the proposed opportunities for future research are: (a) the study of joint representation and reasoning, (b) the study of expertise development through an inferentialist perspective, and (c) the study of how to measure the extent of integrative learning at an individual level. In sum, this work introduces a new way of looking at integration and presents the path that has led to such a view. This perspective, thanks to its strong focus on epistemological beliefs and on the qualitative aspects of chains of social reasoning, results in a new understanding of the integration of theory and practice, i.e., its meaning and a plausible way in which such integration progresses or varies over time (which is something that so far has been concealed or overlooked). This new knowledge represents a contribution to educational research that is concerned with integrative learning in vocational education and has the potential to assist the further advancement of integrative pedagogy theory. Moreover, this book has led to grounded guidelines for those concerned with instructional design and instruction in T-VET. Finally, the operationalisation of the inferentialist theory advanced in this work (which translates epistemological, semantic and pragmatist considerations into specific, observable terms), is proposed as a scientific contribution for further research on integration.

To expose the epistemological rootsof perspectives on professional or vocational knowledge and their implications for curriculum and pedagogy. Review the state of the art on theory-practice integration. Gap identification.

What do we know about the T-P integration?

Research questions

Chapter 2 Perspectives on professional or vocational knowledge. Theoretical (and empirical) -

Purposes

Topic

Overview of the chapters

2. How do our assumptions connect to our methodological choices? 3. What are the elements of the empirical context that

1. What are our ontological and epistemological assumptions?

To make underlying assumptions explicit. To present the rationale for the research methods selection. To describe the empirical context of investigation.

Chapter 3 Methodology Conceptualisation of ILTP as process and as outcome.

Conceptualisation of integrative learning (with a particular focus on theory and practice as core objects of integration). To grasp the epistemoTo advance an empirical logical beliefs of the conceptualisation of the students and their ILTP construct in initial instructors, as a first step technical vocational to disentangle the learning. theory-practice integration in T-VET in a particular learning context. 1. How do key actors in What constitutes the T-VET conceive of the- integrative learning of theoretical and practical ory and practice in techniknowledge? cal vocational 2. What are these actors’ education and training? views on the relationBreak down into two ship between theoretical aspects: and practical The process of learning. knowledge?

Chapter 4 Interpersonal epistemologies

(continued)

How are theoretical and practical judgements brought together in discursive reasoning? Break down: 1. How are analytically different kinds of judgments related to each

Chapter 5 ILPT through social reasoning. Concerned with verbal utterances as used within groups of actors in a theoretical or in a practical way in order to build joint inferences. To understand the process of integrative learning by means of an inferentialist approach. To test whether the study of theory-practice integration can be achieved by using our operationalisation of Inferentialism and Normative Pragmatism.

206 Summary

– As by Chaps. 4 and 5

–

Omission problem: ‘facilitators of integration’ and ‘types of integration’ have been proposed without providing an explanandum for ‘integration’.

Empirical context

Main findings (directly linked to the research questions)

Internally consistent set of assumptions. The assumptions informed our methodological choices, as much as the research aims did. Criteria for

Introspection Research design Phenomenology

Literature review

(continued)

other by the students and their instructors? I.e., in what ways are theoretical, perceptual, and practical judgements brought together into inferential, compatibility and incompatibility relations? 2. What kind of inferential roles do theoretical, perceptual, and practical judgements play during exchanges among the students and their instructors? Grounded theory Grounded theory Phenomenology Focus groups Focus groups & ObservaObservations (longitudiThematic analysis tions nal) Thematic analysis Content-conversational analysis Alternating school-based and workplace-based technical vocational education in the field of chemical process technology. – Micro-level instructional context – Different forms of The ILTP as process can be The integration emerges as knowledge respond to described in terms of three a process of progressive conceptions of theory or dimensions: intentionality, social reasoning. practice, but the actors’ time of the prompt and Theory and practice classification is locus of learning. appear integrated in disunstable. The ILTP as learning outcursive These forms of come can be described in reasoning to co-construct

The expected outcome of this learning process.

provide a thorough description of the embedding?

Chapter 5

Chapter 4

Chapter 3

Methods

Chapter 2

Overview of the chapters (continued)

Summary 207

Outputs – within this book (emerging as products at a theoretical level)

generalisability: complex reasoning is expected from the (future) professionals next to particular skills, constructive tension between performance and mastery, co-existence of between-integration and the within-integration perspectives.

Several rationales on ‘vocational knowledge’ coexist. The very goal of vocational education and training appears to depend on the rationale considered. A non-dualistic view on theory and practice appears to be the most conducive for conceptualisation and further research on integration. Justification for further conducting this research project. Theoretical justification for adopting a non-dualistic epistemological view on theory and practice. Outline of the further research studies.

Transparency. Trustworthiness on the results and conclusions. Analysis of the extent of generalisability. Tools for generalisation of the research findings and conclusions.

Chapter 3

Chapter 2

Overview of the chapters (continued)

Insight on the negotiated epistemological perspectives of the actors considered. A possible expression of the overall ‘integration of theory and practice’ as a network of relationships that are embodied by multiple agents. Empirical justification for adopting a non-dualistic epistemological view on theory and practice.

knowledge relate to each other through activities that are performed by multiple agents.

Chapter 4

Empirical conceptualisation of the ILTP in initial technical vocational learning: description in terms of process and output aspects, including their dimensions. Awareness about the co-existing perspectives on integration.

terms of three dimensions: purpose, logic, and locus of integrated knowledge. Distinctive perspectives on integration co-exist among the actors, according to which the separation of theory and practice is more or less marked.

(continued)

chains around concepts by ‘simultaneously’ advancing justifications, implications, and critiques. There is a positive variation in the actors’ joint responsiveness to theoretical and to practical reasons (i.e., there is growing mastery of concepts). Part of the integration seems to occur ‘naturally’ (i.e., not attributable to the learning programme). A novel perspective on integration, i.e., through the inferentialist lens. An operationalisation of Brandom’s inferentialist theory as analytical tool.

Chapter 5

208 Summary

Implications – beyond this book (at empirical and practical levels)

Chapter 2 It is important to understand the various rationales and to overtly adopt one. Adoption of the Inferentialism as theoretical framework for research on ILTP.

Overview of the chapters (continued)

Chapter 3 Further research on integration can build on our methods. The results and conclusions can be used to generate hypotheses and help to understand the ILTP phenomenon in other educational contexts.

Chapter 4 Adoption of a conceptualisation of ILTP as network for continuing research on integration. Adoption of the Inferentialism as theoretical framework for research on ILTP. Practitioners can reflect on the positioning of their students’ actual process and outcome, according to the six dimensions. Practice oriented research can build on the conceptualisation of ILTP presented.

Chapter 5 New pedagogical approaches in technical vocational education and training can rely on the inferentialist view on integration as a more robust base for their instructional design. Continuing research on integration can use this operationalisation of Inferentialism.

Summary 209

Index

A Agents of integration, 66 Alternating school-based and work-based learning, 13, 50, 63, 106, 145, 146, 168, 202 See also Dual learning

Constant comparison method, 71, 87 Content-conversational analysis, 11, 118, 122, 207 Curriculum curriculum design, 21, 38, 88, 165, 173 curriculum relevance, 4, 21, 161, 201

B Brandom, R., 22, 26–29, 31, 33–37, 88, 90, 91, 107–111, 115, 124, 147, 153, 160–162, 164, 165, 167–169, 176, 178–183, 190, 197, 203, 208

D Derry, J., 1, 26–30, 32, 33, 35, 37–40, 49, 105, 107, 108, 161, 162, 168, 169, 179, 182, 190, 191, 195, 196 Dichotomy, 4, 5, 21, 106 Dimensions of integrated knowledge locus of integration, 84 logic of integrated knowledge, 84 (see also Outcome dimensions) purpose, 84 Dimensions of integrative learning intentionality, 82 locus of learning, 82 (see also Process dimensions) time of the prompt, 82 Discursive reasoning, 11, 119, 146, 148, 152, 162, 168–169, 192, 206, 207 See also Game of giving and asking for reasons (GoGAR) Dualism, 2, 5, 21, 22, 27, 40, 87, 90, 168 Dual learning, 13, 50, 63, 70, 71, 79, 81, 97, 100 See also Alternating school-based and work-based learning

C Chains of reasoning (theoretical and practical), 80, 125, 128, 148, 157, 168–170, 177, 181, 185, 194 Chemical processing, 9, 10, 145, 161, 202, 203 See also Manufacturing process Chemical process technology, 10, 13, 49, 50, 52, 63, 106, 207 Coding axial, 71 open, 71 selective, 71 two-step, 121, 123–125 Cognitive apprenticeship, 52 Conceptualisation (theoretical, empirical), 10, 11, 61–102, 161, 162, 164, 166, 170, 172, 175, 184–187

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Orozco, Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice, Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92770-7

211

212 E Emergent opportunities (for further research), 160 Empirical conceptualisation, 10, 11, 61–102, 164, 206, 208 Empirical setting(s), 47, 53–58, 69, 111, 118, 121, 150, 151, 174–177, 203 Encompassing concepts, 15, 150, 185 Epistemological epistemological assumptions, 57 epistemological assumptions (interpersonal), 186 epistemological beliefs, 10 perspective(s), 4, 8, 9, 11, 19–21, 37, 40, 61–64, 88, 90, 106, 147, 162, 164, 167, 168, 170, 201, 202, 204, 205 positioning, 160, 169 roots, 9, 11, 19, 20, 27, 40, 62, 162, 163, 203, 206 theory/-ies, 2–4, 8, 9, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 61, 63, 64, 86, 90, 93, 94, 97, 100, 106, 147, 163–165, 167–170, 179, 202, 205, 208 Epistemological beliefs, 10, 11, 24, 26–27, 40–42, 46, 63, 64, 87, 91–94, 97, 100, 163–165, 169, 172, 173, 179, 180, 183, 203, 205, 206

F Focus group discussion (FGD), 11, 47, 53, 68, 70, 71, 79–86, 102 Forms of knowledge, 1–3, 6, 20, 22, 23, 25, 48, 50, 62–65, 72, 74–80, 86–92, 95, 105, 164–167, 202, 207

G Game of giving and asking for reasons (GoGAR), 30, 35, 41, 108, 145, 151, 152, 178, 183, 192–194 See also Discursive reasoning Grounded theory, 10, 41, 47–49, 54, 63, 67, 71, 89, 161, 164, 166, 170, 172, 175, 203, 207 Guidelines for instructional designers and educational practitioners, 191 Guile, D., 1–5, 8, 19, 21–25, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37, 39, 45, 46, 49, 61–65, 87, 90, 105–107, 147, 161–163, 165, 167, 168, 195

Index H Hiim, H., 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 19–21, 61–64, 106, 107, 160–162 Historical review(s), 19–22, 64, 162

I ILTP, see Integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP) Implications for actual educational practices, 4 for curriculum design, 4, 161, 201 for research, 4, 22, 202 Inferential relation(s), 20, 31, 33, 35, 39, 109, 125, 131, 148 Inferentialism inferentialism and learning, 36–40 inferentialism and normative pragmatism, 107, 113, 124, 186, 190, 203, 204, 206 inferentialist view (operationalisation), 40 Instructors mentors, 52, 164, 195 tutors, 52, 164, 175 Integration of theory and practice agents, 189 between-integration and within-integration, 79–80 conceptions, 22 objects, 88 perspectives, 64, 168 See also Theory-practice integration Integrative learning conceptualisation(s), 2, 8, 11, 62, 67, 89, 92, 147, 161, 162, 202, 206 over time, 15, 127, 143, 145, 147, 159, 168, 202, 205 process(es), 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 23, 46, 48, 52, 53, 56, 62–64, 66, 67, 79, 81, 82, 89, 92, 106, 114, 143, 145, 146, 148, 159, 161, 166–168, 170, 173, 203, 206 Integrative learning of theory and practice (ILTP), 2, 4, 9–11, 19, 21, 22, 27, 41, 49, 50, 58, 61–102, 105–157, 159–164, 166–170, 174–176, 178–180, 182, 183, 186–191, 202–204, 206–209 outcome dimensions, 92 (see also Dimensions of integrated knowledge) process dimensions, 89, 170 (see also Dimensions of integrative learning)

Index Integrative pedagogy/-ies, 1, 2, 6, 90, 159, 160, 202, 205

J Judgements non-judgements, 129, 143, 146 observational judgements, 110 observational (perceptual), 33, 34 practical judgements, 11, 31, 33, 34, 106, 110, 114, 125, 127–129, 131, 133, 135–137, 140, 143, 145–150, 152, 162, 168–170, 176, 177, 192–194, 206, 207 theoretical judgements, 31, 34, 109, 110, 128, 133, 137, 140, 149, 151, 152, 183, 190, 192, 194

K Kinds of relations compatibility, 109 incompatibility, 109 inferential, 109, 124, 126

L Learning environment(s), 6–8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 26, 33, 38, 50, 51, 62, 66, 68, 72–74, 79, 81, 84, 87, 93, 100, 111, 119, 146, 196 Loeffler, R., 8, 29, 30, 33, 34, 106–110, 115, 161, 162, 167, 168, 176, 181

M Manufacturing process, 52, 53, 55–57, 77, 83, 117, 119, 125, 156 See also Chemical process technology Mastery metaphor, 36, 49, 107, 111, 161, 172 Mediation, 20, 22, 63, 88, 166, 182, 189, 204 Methodological reflection, 58 Micro-level, 2, 12, 13, 27, 46, 49, 50, 52, 62–64, 161, 173, 179, 186–188, 202, 203, 207 Mixed-methods approach (qualitative), 11, 168 Multidisciplinary, 160, 182

N Natural language, 25, 108, 115, 118, 124, 164, 169 Network of relationships, 166, 170, 208 Normative pragmatism, 11, 26–35, 41, 107–108, 145, 162, 178, 183

213 O Objects of integration, 3, 7, 9, 22–24, 27, 41, 61, 66, 80, 94, 98, 100, 113, 162, 163, 165, 170, 206 Omission, 3, 4, 8, 105, 152, 159, 170, 197, 202, 207 Omission problem, 4, 8, 152, 170, 197, 202, 207 Ontological and epistemological positioning, 11, 45, 46 Operationalisation framework, 40, 111–118, 127, 147, 151, 152, 172, 177, 184, 187 of inferentialism, 11, 40, 187, 197, 203, 204, 206, 209 of the inferentialist theory, 11, 146, 182, 203, 205 perspective, 108, 184, 187

P Pedagogical advancement(s), 3, 8, 61 Personal epistemology/-ies, 7, 26, 27, 48, 63–66, 71, 86–88, 163, 164, 189 Perspectives on integration between-perspective, 79, 80, 91, 167, 168, 174, 208 within-perspective, 79, 80, 90, 168, 170, 174, 208 Philosophical legacy/-ies, 27, 64 Physico-chemical, 13–15, 77 Professional knowledge, 3–5, 8, 9, 19–27, 48, 61–65, 87, 106, 147, 160–164, 201 See also Vocational knowledge

Q Qualitative research methods, 118

R Rationality, 33–35 practical, 33–35 theoretical, 33–35 Research design, 46, 69, 111, 112, 126, 145, 172, 174, 175, 177, 183, 184, 203, 204, 207 Research line, 173 Research methodology, 10, 67, 203 Roles of judgements amplative, 117 critical, 117 inferential, 114 justificatory, 117

214 S Scorekeeping, 26, 29–31, 41, 164, 169, 178, 195 Semantic activity, 34, 110 Sensitising concepts, 41, 48, 63–67, 71, 159, 162, 175 Social, 5, 11–14, 20, 27–29, 31–33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 47, 56, 61, 64, 65, 75, 77, 88, 91, 106, 108, 112, 114, 118, 120, 127, 133, 140, 143, 145–151, 165–170, 172, 173, 175, 178–183, 185, 186, 189–191, 193–196, 203–207 Social reasoning, 11–14, 36, 56, 91, 112, 114, 127, 133, 140, 143, 145–151, 165, 168–170, 172, 174, 175, 178, 179, 181–183, 185, 186, 189–191, 193–195, 203–207 Space of reasons, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, 41, 51, 108, 110, 150, 182

T Technical vocational education and training (T-VET), 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 22, 47, 61–63, 67, 68, 72, 86, 88, 89, 160, 201 Theory of meaning, 27, 29, 162 Theory-practice integration, 2, 6, 9–13, 24, 26, 27, 40–42, 49, 51, 55, 61, 62, 64, 80, 88, 91, 92, 107, 111, 113, 128, 147, 153,

Index 159–165, 167–169, 178, 182, 183, 185–189, 191, 195, 197, 201–206 See also Integration of theory and practice Theory-practice relationship, 48, 106 Triad, 116, 120, 122, 127–129, 131–133, 138, 140, 141, 143, 145, 146, 149, 151, 192, 193, 195 T-VET, see Technical vocational education and training (T-VET) Two-step coding, 121, 123, 124 See also Coding Tynjälä, P., 1, 3, 5–8, 23, 61, 64, 66, 90, 105, 160, 167, 180, 183, 184

V Vocational knowledge, 5, 6, 9, 19–21, 40, 56, 61, 86, 90, 148, 161, 162, 173, 186, 188, 203, 204, 206, 208 See also Professional knowledge Vygotsky, L., 22, 28, 35, 63, 65, 78, 87, 88, 91, 147, 165, 182

W Workplace (learning), 3, 5, 6, 23, 37, 71, 73, 74, 81, 82, 93, 95, 98, 100, 146, 163, 164, 166, 175, 177, 180, 187, 189, 190, 201