Oxford Brookes University EdD Colloquium 27th June 2015 Emerging Conceptual Frameworks: Learning, Change and Impact on the Doctoral Journey Adrian Twissell Oxford Brookes University EdD Colloquium 27th June 2015

Abstract Abstract This paper presents an overview of the events leading to conceptual change and impact on the development of one doctoral student’s thesis which explores the conceptual understanding of learners in electronics education. The approach to and results from a small scale study completed as a part of the doctoral journey are used to demonstrate the researcher’s initial conceptual framework and how this evolved alongside data collection and literature review. First an overview of the key literature related to the initial framework is explained in relation to the research aims. The paper then presents the small scale study and its key findings, which leads to considerations of the impact of the study and the step changes implemented by the researcher in his thesis. The notions of troublesome knowledge and conceptual thresholds are used as lenses through which to explore events and decisions which are considered, through a transformative process, to support learning. Finally a revised conceptual framework outlines the researcher’s emergent approach to data collection and analysis and compares this with the doctoral journey’s point of departure. Key Words: conceptual change, conceptual framework, threshold concepts, doctoral journey, learning

Overview Conceptual frameworks (Miles & Huberman, 1994) An initial conceptual framework Feasibility study: a glimpse at cognitive behaviour Evaluation of initial framework Threshold concepts: influence and change on the EdD journey Revised conceptual framework Change & Impact Conclusion: Transformation & Learning Drawing on the idea of conceptual frameworks as described by Miles & Huberman (1994)

Conceptual Frameworks ‘Intellectual bins’ contain key events & behaviours Conceptual frameworks represent & explain: key factors (Representation use, Cognitive mechanisms) constructs (Conceptual understanding) and variables (Learner differentiation) (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 18) Drawing on the idea of conceptual frameworks as described by Miles & Huberman (1994)

Initial Conceptual Framework Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986) Observation Personal Perspectives Visualisation as Dual Coding Process Hypothesis Testing Experimentation/Enhanced Focus Practical Experience Metaphor Learning? Adapted from Miles & Huberman (1994, 21)

Feasibility Study Feasibility study: Outcomes Fixed design: linear Findings Practical application supports thinking Specific electronics metaphors/foundation metaphors support thinking Test Interview Findings

Feasibility Study: network map Representational Connections Verbal Nonverbal Technical Terms Stimuli linked with components or their operation Some use of specific/foundation metaphor   Verbal referents Preferred response method Circuit function Specific verbs describe function Practical action ‘pressing’, ‘pushing’ Conceptual Analogue, digital Familiar products ‘greenhouse control’ Representational Connections as a Cognitive Mechanism (Paivio, 1986) Positive: Clear identification of external verbal & nonverbal referents-useful for designing learning materials Negative: doesn’t tell us much about learning processes Representational connections network map adapted from Thomas (2009)

Evaluation of Initial Framework How does practical experience support learning in this context? How does specific metaphor develop? How is foundation metaphor assimilated? Dual Coding role unclear Notion of wider conceptualisation arises National Foundation for Educational Research

Threshold Concepts Threshold Concepts (Meyer and Land, 2003) Actions/events leading to development Development of specific knowledge and/or researcher identity Leads to transformation of learning/identity Troublesome knowledge Conceptual Threshold Crossing (Wisker, et al., 2010) Specific to doctoral study Leads to conceptual change Meyer and Land (2003) refer to threshold concepts, which describe the actions and or events necessary for the development of understanding As previously described (Thompson & Twissell, 2014) the thresholds can become symbolic for individuals, as they attach their own meaning to actions/events Conceptual threshold crossing refers to those events specific to the doctoral journey (Wisker, et al. (2010) Interesting point-how do you know and you don’t necessarily know when a threshold has been crossed. Knowing that I had crossed didn’t emerge until I reflected on the events for a written piece as a part of the EdD.

Troublesome knowledge / Crossing thresholds Method Range of literature available Theoretical understanding Literature review Consolidation of reading Range of methodologies available Methodological understanding Peer review of research plans & proposals Feasibility Study Learning mechanisms Understanding of cognitive processes Co-authorship of learning journey paper

Emerging Conceptual Framework Levels of Understanding Conceptions of Knowledge Curriculum Metaphor Dual Coding Visualisation ↓ Representation Use/Conceptual Understanding Interpretative Cross-Comparative Case Study Uni Regulations Ethics Interview Methodology Constant Comparison Conceptual Understanding Learning Style Rep Use Other Subjects Learning History Practical Experience

Change Thresholds used to inform the current research: More broadly informed starting points Iterative process of data gathering and analysis Methodology clearly focused on the case-what’s in and what’s out of the study Clear methodology, method & analytical framework Constructivist learning focused around individuals (Bruner, 1977)

Conclusion: Transformation & Impact Need to embrace transformation process (Bruner, 1977) New knowledge/transformation/evaluation Conceptual change is emergent – integration with existing knowledge (Chen, et al., 2013) Transformation achieved through iterative process of research, literature review and peer review Troublesome knowledge identified & reflected upon Learning linked with conceptual change and crossed thresholds identified Difference identified: threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) Conceptual threshold crossing (Wisker, et al., 2010)

References Bruner, J. (1977) The Process of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Chen, U. L., Pan, P. R., Sung, Y. T. and Chang, K. E. (2013) Correcting Misconceptions on Electronics: Effects of a simulation based learning environment backed by a conceptual change model, Educational Technology and Society, 16 (2), pp. 212-227. Meyer, J. H. F. and Land, R. (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In Rust, C. Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On, OCSLD, Oxford. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed), London: Sage. Paivio, A. (1986) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, New York: Oxford University Press. Thomas, G. (2009) How to do Your Research Project, London: Sage. Wisker, G., Morris, C., Cheng, M., Warnes, M., Trafford, V., Robinson, G. and Lilly, J. (2010) Doctoral Learning Journeys: Final Report, Higher Education Academy National Teaching Fellowship Scheme Project, University of Brighton and Anglia Ruskin University.