Vocational education is usually organised around different learning arenas, and often, a gap between the school and the workplaces is emphasised (i.e. Aarkrog, 2005; Akkerman & Bakker, 2012; Schaap, Baartman, & De Bruijn, 2012; Tanggaard, 2007). Research has discussed how to bridge this gap in different ways (cf. Illeris, 2009; Sappa, Choy, & Aprea, 2016; Tynjälä, 2009). Digital technology has been found to be useful as “boundary objects” in bridging this gap – or “crossing boundaries” – between the two learning arenas (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; 2012; Berner, 2010). These latter authors build their research on theories on boundary crossing stemming from activity theory, where activities are seen as systems in which different actors interact (Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003). In our own research, when using Akkerman and Bakker’s (2011) model of learning mechanisms, we suggested a hierarchical way of using those learning mechanisms. The reason for this is that some teachers’ development changed in a similar way throughout this model of learning mechanisms (OWN RESEARCH, accepted). 

Aim

In a follow-up study, however, we found that teachers considered as enthusiastic “early adopters” and who had given examples of many creative solutions of using technology as boundary objects, did not always reach their aim when trying to develop their practice further (OWN RESEARCH, submitted). Their ideas followed our suggested hierarchy, but the teachers pointed at different obstacles along the way, which made it difficult to put their ideas into practice. Therefore, in this study the aim is to deepen the knowledge about obstacles vocational teachers’ experience in relation to the use of digital technology technology when trying to bridge the gap between school and workplaces.

Theoretical framework

The study has its base in a theoretical understanding of teacher agency according to Priestly, Biesta and Robinson (2015), who advocate an ecological approach. According to this view, the experiences developed in the past, including experiences developed during teacher education, are important for how teacher agency is enabled in the present. At the same time, the present is important to enable a vision of how to act in a future situation in their teaching. Priestly, Biesta and Robinson suggest a chordal triad with three dimensions, namely the iterational (past, habit), the projective (future, imagination) and the practical-evaluative (present, judgement) dimensions of agency. This is a view that stems from Emirbayer and Mische (1998), who discuss agency in general and not specifically teacher agency.

Teacher agency, within an ecological approach, is achieved through the interplay between the context and the capacity of the individual, which means that the individual cannot always act according to personal ideas and visions (Priestly et al., 2015). Priestly, Biesta and Robinson (2015) highlight three aspects; culture, structures and available material, and point out how these affect the achievement of teacher agency. The cultural aspect, here, represents the beliefs people bring, but also their ways of thinking and speaking of values. The structural aspect has to do with social structures and relational resources. The material aspect is about the physical environment. (Priestly, Biesta & Robinson, 2015).

Using this perspective, the following research questions will be used:

• What solutions do the teachers aim at when using technology as boundary objects between school and workplaces?
• What obstacles beyond the teachers’ control do they, themselves, see as hinders to reach their aim?

Data was collected by interviewing six vocational teachers in-depth. The teachers were purposively selected because of using digital technology to bridge the gap between school and workplaces. They represented different vocational programmes with different ways of organising practice for the students. Each teacher, except for one, was interviewed twice, and the average length of one interview is a bit less than one hour [in total 10h25m37s]. The interviews took place either at their schools or at the university, depending on the interviewee’s choice. To analyse data, we use the model of teacher agency developed by Priestly, Biesta and Robinson (2015) focusing on how the three aspects of the practical-evaluative dimension in this model affect the achievement of teacher agency. The three aspects – culture, structures and available material – are described above.

The teachers give examples of many solutions they would like to see put in use to better bridge the gap between school and workplaces, for example collaboration with colleagues, or using or developing specific apps. Following Biesta et al.’s model described above, we can see obstacles related to all three aspects of the practical-evaluative dimension. Although our results are still very preliminary, we would like to share a few examples from the different aspects. Cultural aspect: Swedish teachers today work more and more in teams. The interviewees describe difficulties in finding colleagues who want to collaborate. Collaboration concerns views of teaching and learning as well as views of digital technology. These are examples of the cultural aspect Structural aspect: Between the two interviews, the new General Data Protection Regulations was implemented. This led to schools fearing they would do something wrong when using digital tools. A lot of freeware teachers had used earlier was forbidden by the management at several schools. Material aspect: Lack of economic resources when it was not allowed to use freeware was mentioned, as well as lack of mobile phones for pupils to keep in touch more easily during practice periods. The interviewees gave examples of what they thought could help them to develop the work with bridging the gap. These examples were based on earlier experiences. An important result is also that different professional fields have different needs, and that there is not one solution that could be applied to all workplaces. A conclusion is that it is not enough to be an enthusiastic teacher with a lot of ideas to be able to develop the work with digital boundary objects to bridge the gap between school and workplaces.

Aarkrog, V. (2005). Learning in the workplace and the significance of school-based education: A study of learning in a Danish vocational education and training programme. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(2), 137–147. Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research 81(2), 132–169. Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2012). Crossing boundaries between school and work during apprenticeships. Vocations and Learning, 5(2), 153–173. Berner B. (2010). Crossing boundaries and maintaining differences between school and industry: Forms of boundary‐work in Swedish vocational education. Journal of Education and Work 23(1), 27–42. Illeris, K. (2009). Transfer of learning in the learning society: How can the barriers between different learning spaces be surmounted, and how can the gap between learning inside and outside schools be bridged? International Journal of Lifelong Education 28(2), 137–148. OWN RESEARCH (accepted). Digital technology as boundary objects. OWN RESEARCH (submitted). Connecting school and workplace. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloombury Academic. Sappa, V., Choy, S., & Aprea, S. (2016). Stakeholders′ conceptions of connecting learning at different sites in two national VET systems. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 68(3), 283–301 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. Tanggaard, L. (2007). Learning at trade vocational school and learning at work: Boundary crossing in apprentices’ everyday life. Journal of Education and Work, 20(5), 453–466. Tynjälä, P. (2009). Connectivity and transformation in work-related learning: Theoretical foundations. In M. Stenström, & P. Tynjälä (Eds.), Towards integration of work and learning (pp. 11–37). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.