I: School to tertiary education transitions
School to tertiary education transitions
Student transition experiences: Key concepts and exemplar investigation models
STUDENT TRANSITION EXPERIENCES
Key concepts and exemplar investigation models
Transitions have attracted the attention of various stakeholders for the last few decades because they are important in students’ studying journey. It is hard to define what it really means by having a ‘successful transition’ or ‘unsuccessful transition’ because students have many choices for their next destination at the end of each schooling level. If they cannot enter a programme they want, it does not mean they are a failure because there are other options available. Besides, students may define their ‘success’ very differently from other stakeholders including the government, schools and parents. If students succeed in completing all exams and then finish a schooling level, it does not necessarily mean the school has prepared them well for the postschool journey.
In recent years, there has been much criticism about the high amount of attention schools have given to academic teaching and learning so that they can compete for international and local rankings. Policy-makers have increasingly become interested in tests, grades, scores and ranking and have used these perfonnance indicators to decide the quality of schools and universities and the amount of funding allocated to schools and universities. As a result, capabilities and skills that are important for human development and success in society like autonomy, problem-solving, initiative, reasoning, critical thinking, leadership, honesty, trustworthiness, curiosity and perseverance are not often counted as foremost learning outcomes in teaching and learning programmes. Transitions have also become very diverse due to a wide range of different destination options after schooling. Students can go to university immediately if they meet university entrance requirements. If they do not, they can take an alternative pathway to prepare for university. If students are not interested in tertiary education, they can undertake further training in vocational courses or find employment.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of school-to-university transitions. It first discusses key concepts associated to transitions and then reviews research studies about school-to-university transitions in Australia. The review aims to unpack first-year students’ transition experiences and how they have changed during the last two decades. The chapter finally discusses Biggs’ (1993) 3 I’s model -Presage, Process, Product - which has been widely used to examine schooling transitions, as an exemplar framework that allows for an investigation of the complexity of transitions.
Key concepts associated with students' transitions
Raffe (2003) claims that ‘transition’ is a concept that does not occur in a sociopolitical and economic vacuum; rather, they are the products of wider ‘transition systems’. How people use terminologies and define phenomena associated with ‘transition’ are shaped by socio-political and economic forces. Below are some key terminologies about transitions and how they have been interpreted in the large socio-political context.
There are two main perspectives about transitions. The first perceives transitions as a single and abrupt movement from one level or stage to the next level or stage. Common transitions are from early childhood to preschool, from preschool to school and from school to tertiary education. The second advocates that transitions should be seen as a process that takes a much longer time (OECD, 2009). This means preparing students for transitions should not occur only in the final stage of their education such as last semester or final year. All preparations should occur immediately after students enter a new destination.
Trajectories have been used to ‘express social forces that shaped transitions more powerfully than government designed pathways, and that meant young people making the transition varies in their resources and momentum’ (Raffe, 2003, p. 3). This tenn emphasises that differences in students’ transition experiences result from differences in the resources and support students could access. Several chapters in this book, for example, provide evidence of how local and international students experience transitions differently because they have different ethnic, linguistic, cultural and educational backgrounds.
This tenn stresses the idea that students may have positive or negative transition experiences not only because of the resources available to them but also their capacities in using the resources. If they could use resources to overcome barriers on the transitions, this means they could navigate the transitional phases. Beck (1992) claimed that navigation is used to stress individual agency in utilising opportunities and choices.
This is the most common and dominant tenn in policy discourses. Although much evidence has been found that transitions are a complex process through which students could be either supported or constrained by various factors at different levels; if transitions are regarded as pathways, they are viewed as a rather linear sequence of events (e.g. Bathmaker, 2017; Jorgensen, 2017; Perna, 2006; Smith & Kemmis, 2014).
Forms of capital
Concepts about capital were originally found in the seminal work of Bourdieu (1986) in which he argued that economic, social and cultural capital carries particular weight in deciding one’s success in what he/she does. Subsequent related research (e.g. Pham et al., 2019; Pham & Jackson, 2020; Tholen et ah, 2013; Tomlinson, 2017) expanded Bourdieu’s forms of capital revealing that the significance of more forms of capital including human (e.g. qualifications, professional skills), cultural (e.g. understanding of local labour markets), social (e.g. connections with family members and industry people), identity (e.g. career direction), and psychological (e.g. resilience, capacity to deal with stress) in both education and work. Tomlinson (2017) developed a capital model capturing five key forms of capital - human capital, social capital, cultural capital, identity capital, and psychological capital. Although this model was originally used to discuss graduates’ employ- ability negotiation, the forms of capital are also relevant to other types of transitions. The following sections briefly explain these forms of capital and individual chapters of this book will discuss them in relation to specific contexts, cohorts of students and types of transitions in more detail.
Human capital is described as knowledge and professional skills which students acquire in both formal and informal education modes. One of the most obvious forms of human capital is the content knowledge, educational qualification or degree and practical knowledge and skills. These forms of knowledge and skills have been evidenced as important enabling factors of students’ transitions. Tomlinson (2017) argued that the ‘additional formal education makes individuals more skilled and therefore more productive’ (p. 341). Graduates in vocation-related disciplines tend to be able to apply technical knowledge upon employment in a straightforward manner; whereas those in general education disciplines do not have a clear transferable knowledge pathway to the workplace (Tomlinson, 2017).
Social capital refers to social relationships and networks with significant others, including family, peers, higher education institutions, and social organisations that could support and hinder students’ transition outcomes. Putnam (2000) described two main types of social networks. The first is bonding ties which refer to connections with ‘people who are like me in some important way’ - and bridging ties which refer to relationships with ‘people who are unlike me in some important way’ (cited in Ryan, Erel & D’Angelo, 2015, p. 6). Bonding networks are regarded as ‘negative’ social capital because they often lead to closed ethnic enclaves threatening overall social cohesion (Marshall & Stolle, 2004). Differently, bridging networks are often associated with ‘positive’ forms of social capital because they result in integration and social mobility in wider society (Nannestad, Svendsen & Svendsen, 2008). Ryan, Erel and D’Angelo (2015) explained that ‘bonding may involve close, durable relationships resulting in shared resources of social and emotional support, while bridging may involve more expansive but less intimate relationships resulting in flows of valuable information’ (pp. 7-8). According to Bourdieu (1986), social ties are most effective when they result in access to those who have more resources and knowledge. Therefore, students from lower and marginalised socioeconomic backgrounds are disadvantaged in building and accessing social capital and often have to use existing economic capital or make more efforts to enrich their social network (Tomlinson, 2017).
Cultural capital refers to culturally valued knowledge, dispositions and insights typically valued within a context such as schools, universities and organisations. This capital is illustrated as a ‘personality package’ that includes accent, body language and humour (Tomlinson, 2017). Cultural capital can be developed through the engagements of a diverse range of university and social life, such as student leadership, debate clubs, civic society or community engagement (Walker, Fongwa & SpringerLink, 2017). It is noted that there are connections between different forms of capital and, in particular, the possibility of converting them into one another (Cederberg, 2015). For instance, possessing cultural capital could enable individuals to access or broaden their social networks since social capital is built on ‘long-lasting dispositions’ such as ways of thinking and acting; when people become familiar with particular behaviours and expectations, they have a better chance of enriching their social networks (Bourdieu, 1986). In return, joining social networks could create opportunities for individuals to understand ways of doing things, and facilitating the enriching of cultural capital. Similar to social capital, disadvantaged groups of students including those from poor socioeconomic background and an overseas background often have more struggles in developing cultural capital.
Identity capital is defined as the level of personal investment a graduate makes towards the development of their future career and employability (Tomlinson, 2017). An individual’s identity is shaped by active self-investment and preparation for what they do. For example, career identity represents the way individuals defines themselves in the career context (McArdle, Waters, Briscoe & Hall, 2007) and encompasses attributes such as career motivation, personal meaning, and individual values by addressing ‘who I am or want to be’ (Fugate, Kinicki & Ashforth, 2004). If individuals are clear about who they are and what they want, they are more likely to extend their abilities in the desired direction by gaining experience, shaping the values and aspirations. Cote (2005) showed that identity capital development requires individuals to invest in certain identities and proactively network in a variety of contexts. People who invest in their identity capital tend to successfully secure satisfactory outcomes (Pham et al., 2019). Tomlinson (2017) highlighted the curriculum vitae (CV) as a tool allowing students to present compelling narratives that demonstrate their identities.
Psychological capital refers to the capacities that enable students to overcome barriers, adapt to new situations, and respond proactively to inevitable challenges (Tomlinson, 2017). Adaptability is an essential element of psychological capital, allowing the person to negotiate uncertain environments more effectively than those who are more rigid (Fugate et ah, 2004). Therefore, an individual who is able to perfonn a high level of adaptability is more equipped with optimism, the propensity to learn, openness, internal locus of control and generalised self-efficacy (Fugate et ah, 2004). Although resilience has been shown as an attribute within a skills-oriented approach and individuals either possess it or not, within a psychological capital framework, resilience is regarded as a process that individuals perfonn in the face of challenges. This capital enables graduates to withstand the pressures in an uncertain labour climate before they receive a job offer (Tomlinson, 2017). This capital is becoming increasingly important because of the intense competition and uncertainty regarding employment in today’s labour market.
In addition to these forms of capital, Pham and Jackson (2020) found that it is important for graduates to develop ‘agentic capital’ — that is the capacity to develop strategies to use various forms of capital effectively and strategically depending on one’s ethnic background, areas of expertise, career plans, contexts, and personal qualities. More specifically, the authors defined ‘agentic capital’ as the capacity to interlink various forms of capital, highlight strengths, cover weaknesses, and visualise one’s short- and long-term goals of career development. In fact, various studies in different contexts have used the term ‘agency’ to describe the capacities that individuals possess to navigate difficulties they face (e.g. Beck, 1992; Goller, 2017) but the concept of ‘agency’ is often not explained clearly in previous studies. Pham and Jackson (2020) developed the concept of ‘agentic capital’ to illustrate a range of capacities that individuals possess and could develop to navigate obstacles in both study and work. It is noted that people could have agency but often exercise agency ‘within existing social conventions, values and sanctions’ (Bourdieu, 1986, cited in Tholen 2015, p. 777). Pham and Jackson (2020), Pham (2020) and Marginson (2014) found evidence that individuals could exercise agency to not only respond to but also change structural factors. Pham (2020) gave an example about some graduates in her study who were refused to apply their overseas gained knowledge and skills in the local context due to the hierarchical culture. However, they did not give up but used their personal qualities to climb to the system and then used their authority to create space to apply their innovative knowledge obtained overseas. In sum, all of these capitals interact with each other as influencers of students’ transitions in a Capitals-based approach illustrated in Figure 2.1.
FIGURE 2.1 A Capitals-based approach
What are the key challenges facing first-year students?
Researchers globally have come to a consensus that the first year of study is of the utmost importance for student retention and success in the subsequent years (Baijnath, 1997; Bean, 2005; Beyer, Gillmore & Fisher, 2007; McGhie, 2017; Krause et al., 2005; Kuh et al., 2005). A large body of research has been conducted to examine students’ experiences in the first year (e.g. Baik, Naylor & Arkoudis, 2015; Nelson, Clarke, Kift & Creagh, 2011; Kift, 2009). These studies aimed to examine challenges facing first-year students and how to enhance their engagement. A range of challenges associated with academic work at universities that first-year students coped with were documented in these studies. The most common challenge was overwhelming workloads because many first-year students had issues with self-directed learning and time management (Brinkworth et al., 2013; Kyndt, Berghmans, Dochy & Bulckens, 2014; Rogers, Creed, Searle & Nicholls, 2015). A large number also struggled to become familiar with university environments like expected studying culture and operating systems (McKay & Devlin, 2014; King et al., 2015; Soltani, 2018; Wyn, Cuervo & Landstedt, 2015).
Besides, a range of challenges not directly associated with academic work of first- year students has also been reported in various research studies. For example, most students had wellbeing problems including mental and physical wellness (Baik, Naylor & Arkoudis, 2015; King et al., 2015) and some were stressed out because they were unable to meet expectations of their parents (Wyn, Cuervo & Landstedt, 2015). Baik et al. (2015) found the most common reason cited by first-year students who considered dropping out was emotional distress. This issue resulted from a range of pressures that fresh students had to cope with both academically and non-academically. Importantly, Baik et al. (2015) evidenced that compared to 2009, first-year students in 2014 were less socially engaged with the university community. For example, compared to 74% of students who had made at least one or two close friends at university in 2009, only 65% did that in 2014. There are many reasons contributing to students’ lack of engagement with studies and university but an important reason might be that an increasing number of students have taken part-time work and spent a significant portion of their time on work outside the university. Their life as a student does not, therefore, belong to university entirely. Experiences students obtain in industry are certainly useful for their later transitions from education to work but largely have an impact on their academic studies at universities.
As such, findings reported in previous studies have proved that academic struggles are only an aspect of university students’ life. If programmes and interventions that are developed to enhance students’ university experiences only focus on addressing academic issues, they are unlikely to obtain optimal outcomes because academic and social aspects are intertwined and inseparable. Several researchers have, therefore, argued that any intervention that supports first-year students should not focus on a specific subject, a specific stakeholder or a specific area but should take a whole-of-university approach (Fernandez et al., 2016; Kift, 2009; Mclnnis, 2001; Nelson et al., 2011; Orme & Dooris, 2010). These holistic approaches certainly take time and are difficult to develop and implement but will ensure long-term and optimal outcomes. The section below, therefore, discusses Biggs’ (1993) 3 Ps model -Presage, Process, Product as an exemplar framework to examine the complexity in students’ transitions. This framework perceives transitions as a complex phenomenon which involves multifaceted factors of various stakeholders. Students can obtain positive transition experiences if characteristics of different stakeholders match.
Biggs' (1993) 3 Ps model -Presage, Process, Product
Biggs’ (1993) 3 Ps model consists of three main stages - Presage, Process, Product - that transition interventions should examine.
1 Presage factors
Presage factors provide the context which determines students’ transitions. The following sections discuss key features of the government’s policies and school programmes, teachers’ support and students’ characteristics in Australia as examples of presage factors.
The government's policies
The common trend stated in policies about transitions in many countries including Australia is that students need to complete at least the senior schooling level and then participate in university or vocational programs after completing schooling education (Ryan, Johnson & Billett, 2012). To prepare for school-to-university transitions, students are often categorised in different streams at the middle schooling level, labelled as ‘academically-oriented’ and ‘vocationally-oriented’. Students belonging to the former stream are directed and supported to attend programmes preparing for university entrance; whereas students categorised to belong to the latter are often advised and facilitated to choose courses to enhance practical skills. Policy makers believe that this division could help students be well prepared and clear with what they want to do when they reach the completion stage of their schooling education (OECD, 2009). In fact, guiding students to choose a possible destination early could help them develop the sense of responsibility and accountability towards the chosen prospects early. However, students do not always follow what they have planned because changes in their personal circumstances as well as contextual uncertainties constantly occur. Policies about streaming students have, therefore, received criticism which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this book.
Programme structures could influence how students prepare for the next level of education. Traditionally, Australian schools have mainly offered a general education focus but have recently developed vocational programmes. Practical education has not been well embraced in programmes focused on general education but mostly designed as an independent area. The majority of students, therefore, still follow the general education programmes with little knowledge about vocational education. This means those students who are capable enough to enter universities are often more well pie- pared for their transitions. By contrast, those who take other pathways including vocational education, TAFE and employment become disadvantaged because they are less prepared in the schooling programmes. More efforts and attention should be paid to preparing transitions of students who do not follow the general education programmes. There is currently an increase in number of students pursuing vocational and employment pathways. For example, in 2015, PISA collected information on the educational qualifications students in OECI) countries expected to complete and found that more and more Australian students were planning to complete Year 12 and pursue a Certificate IV. Specifically, in 2003, 23% expected to finish their studies at Year 12 or to undertake a Certificate IV qualification (usually through an apprenticeship), and by 2015 had increased to 35%. This survey also reported that in 2003, 63% of Australian students expected to undertake a university degree, and by 2015 this had decreased to 54%. It is noted that a large-scale survey conducted by Baik, Naylor and Arkoudis, (2015) added more insights about how school leavers chose their destination. The survey reported a significant rise in the proportion of students (65% in 2015 from 50% in 2009) who experienced considerable pressure at school to attend university. This means that a number of students might go to university because of external pressures but not their real interest.
Governmental policies play an influential role in detennining how teachers should teach and support students for transitions. An important note about how policies have driven teaching and learning at the schooling level is that Australia has increasingly showed interest in standardised tests like NAPLAN, Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) and PISA. This tendency has driven teachers and schools to pay much attention to teaching and preparing students for tests and university entrance, a trend clearly seen in private schools. These schools have full authority to decide what to teach, so often place emphasis on subjects that are needed for NAPLAN and ATAR (Teese & Polesel, 2003). Investments and priorities in fostering academic quality of private schools explain why students attending private schools have dominated pathways to universities (Marks, 2004; Teese, 2007). Down, Smyth and Robinson (2018) also found that students’ transitions could be positively and negatively influenced by their teachers’ perceptions and judgements of their capacities. They reported several cases whereby teachers believed working-class students suited vocational-oriented pathways better only because their parents did not go to university (this point will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3).
Characteristics of students
Students hold a range of characteristics that could determine their transitions. These include social ties (Ball & Vincent, 1998; Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007; Pham, 2014; Watt & Badger, 2009), cultural capital (e.g., Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh & Whitt, 2005; Heath, Fuller & Johnston, 2010; Snee & Devine, 2014), psychological capacities (Anderson, Delfabbro, Dollard, Metzer, Trainor & Winefield, 2005; Bramston & Patrick, 2007; Stallman, 2010) and agency (Holland, Reynolds & Weller, 2007; Snee & Devine, 2014). For instance, Bargh, McKenna and Fitzsi- mons (2002), Helliwell and Putnam (2004) and Ellison et al. (2007) found that many students had unsatisfactory experiences at university mainly because they did not develop quality friendships with new peers and lost connections with close friends in their previous schools. Open-minded students could easily adapt to the new learning environments because they did not depend too much on previous friendship networks (Pham & Pham, 2017). To enhance social integration and the transition from school to university, it is very important for students to build supportive peer groups, meet people and make new friends (Tinto, 2000). Unfortunately, Baik et al. (2015) found that Australian university students have become less interested in spending time to socialise at university, leading to hardship in developing friendships in the new setting.
Differences in academic capacities have also been found to have influential impacts on first-year students’ experiences in university. Students with low ATAR scores are often less prepared for university, experience less enjoyment of their courses and achieve lower levels of academic engagement. Baik et al. (2015) reported that although nearly a third of low ATAR students exceeded their own expectations for assessment grades in the first year, students in this group were more likely to have difficulties with their studies, and more likely to have considered deferring or withdrawing (26%, compared to 17% for high ATAR students).
Finally, differences in family backgrounds were also a strong determinant of students’ transitioning experiences. Parents can influence students’ transitions both academically and non-academically. Fleming and Grace (2017) emphasised that those parents who have a university degree could help their children significantly by not only providing guidance but also motivating them. Similarly, Down et al. (2018) argued that high SES students benefited from their parents’ insights about most optimal pathways and continuous guidance and support during and after the transitioning periods. Those first-year students who face financial matters experience extra pressures during the transitional phases. For instance, many students in low SES families have to manage both studies and part-time jobs, so they certainly find transitioning periods more challenging (Down et al., 2018). In their study, Down et al. (2018) reported that low SES students could not attend university because they could not afford public transportation. Similarly, Snee and Devine (2014) showed significant ‘classed differences between the children of parents who had experienced some upward mobility and those who had remained in working- class positions’ (p. 1010). Consequently, although low SES students showed stronger purpose in enrolling in university and pursuing a university degree, they were more stressed about financial matters and how to balance between work and study compared to their peers from a middle-class background (75% and 59%, compared to 60% and 50% respectively) (Baik et al., 2015).
The process emphasises interactions of stakeholders and factors involved in the transitional phases. Students’ learning and transition outcomes are perceived as a product resulting from alignments and misalignments between students’ qualities, backgrounds, attitudes and practices and contextual factors surrounding them including institutional programmes, lecturers, friends and material resources. If policy intentions, characteristics and expectations of teachers and schools match those of students, students tend to have positive transition experiences. A large number of research studies have been conducted on how interactions of these factors influence students’ transitions in university (e.g., Bandias et al., 2011; Kahu, 2013; Kahu et al., 2015; Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Mailman & Lee, 2016; Reay, David & Ball, 2001). Findings of these studies have revealed that students’ transitions were significantly influenced by social attachment and isolation or feelings of individual comfort/discomfort experienced in the context of a particular university (Braxton et al., 2014; Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1975) developed an integration model which has been widely used to examine alignments/misalignments between students’ academic capacity and motivation and the institution’s social and academic environment and programmes. This model consists of six areas as follows:
- 1. Pre-entry attributes (how the student develops before entry into post- secondary' education with regard to family background, skills and abilities and prior schooling)
- 2. The student’s intentions, goals and commitment
- 3. How the student experiences the institution with regard to the academic system (academic performance, interaction with staff and faculty) and the social system (extra-curricular activities and peer group interaction)
- 4. How integration is taking place (both academic and social integration)
- 5. The student’s intentions, goals, institutional commitment and external commitments
- 6. The outcome (decision by the student to remain or to depart).
Tinto stressed that any intervention that aims to support students to overcome problems at their transitional points needs to consider these six areas. There are always, unfortunately, mismatches between expectations of students and other stakeholders of universities. An example illustrating mismatches between students’ resources and capacities and institution’s resources and expectations is that in universities students are expected to be more independent. This has put many students in stressful situations because they may not be familiar with this learning culture in schools (more mismatches will be discussed in later chapters of this book).
Importantly, the current neoliberalism regime uses education as a tool to serve the mantra of standardisation, testing, accountability, competition, and prescribed curriculum seizes the imagination of policy makers (Gatto, 2009). Therefore, students’ interests, aspirations, interests, needs and desires are increasingly silenced although these elements are crucial determinants of students’ engagement and motivation. Down et al. (2018) evidenced that students’ disengagement did not come from the fact that they did not want to leam but rather they did not want to do what schools and authorities wanted them to learn. Besides, pressures on tests and academic performance have driven schools to depart from paying attention to facilitating students to develop social skills and engagement in non-academic aspects. Unfortunately, these social aspects are important for university students’ life (as discussed above). There are, therefore, clear mismatches between how schools are preparing students for their post-school life. Wood (2005, p. 8) proposed that the real issue is how to better connect ‘the academic and social agenda of the school’. Similarly, Down et al. (2018) put forward two important questions for more innovations in schooling programmes:
- 1. How to organise schools in ways that allow these passions to flourish?
- 2. How to redesign school - curriculum, organisation timetables, pedagogy and relationships — in ways that provide students with the flexibility and opportunities to gain real-world knowledge, skills and experience in order to build confidence and a sense of purpose for the future?
Product refers to either negative or positive transition experiences depending on students’ qualities and resources and the alignments between these qualities and resources and the institution’s resources and facilities. As discussed above, transitions should not be understood as ‘pass a level of education’. Rather, transitions consist of various aspects and occur for a long period of time. Key transition outcomes that students should be prepared to achieve include:
- • Academic performance and abilities
- • Social and professional skills
- • Intellectual qualities
- • Wellbeing
- • Motivation and attitudes.
Positive and negative experiences of students on their transitions determine how these knowledge, skills and capacities are nurtured not only in the first year but in following years.
First-year students’ transitions have been widely agreed as important experiences of students’ life. Unfortunately, a large volume of research has evidenced a wide range of issues facing fresh students. As discussed in this chapter, these issues include academic and non-academic challenges. On the academic side, students tend to find it difficult to deal with the workload when entering university, navigate the system and interpret expectations of university and academics. No matter how well they are prepared at the schooling level, differences in learning and teaching expectations at university subject students to pressures. On the non-academic side, students are found to cope with challenges associated with their mental, physical, social and financial aspects. These issues often occur when people move into a new setting where they are uncertain about rules, regulations and expectations. Schools do not often pay sufficient attention to these aspects when preparing their students for the next pathway. Consequently, fresh students often have unpleasant experiences about these issues and find it hard to manage them. It is clear that some of these problems are appraised as threatening challenges. Thus, school and university need to create better support to facilitate students with challenges. There have been research and interventions that were implemented at unit and faculty levels to address some specific issues. However, as discussed in the chapter, what is missing is university-wide interventions that bring multiple stakeholders together. Such holistic programmes have the potential to support fresh students more effectively. To create such highly effective programmes, universities and schools need to develop better collaborations and partnerships. Divisions and departments of universities and schools also need to develop better collaborations to support each other.
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- 1. How do you think about transitions of different generations?
- 2. What kind of policies about transitions have you experienced in your study journey?
- 3. How have your family background influenced your education transition experiences?
- 4. Reflect on your experiences, which forms of capital do you use the most to succeed in your study and work?
- 5. Give some examples about how you have developed agentic capital to navigate difficulties in your studies?
Anderson, S., Delfabbro, P. H., Dollard, M., Metzer, J., Trainor, S., & Winefield, A. H. (2005). The psychological well-being and health risk behaviours of Australian adolescents: regional and gender differences. International Journal of Rural Psychology, 4, 1—18.
Baijnath, N. (1997). Facilitating educational change: Academic development in a university setting. Unpublished D Phil dissertation, University of the Western Cape.
Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2015). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from two decades, 1994-2014. Melbourne: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.
Ball, S. J., & Vincent, C. (1998). I heard it on the grapevine: ‘Hot’ knowledge and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(3): 377—400. doi:10.1080/ 0142569980190307.
Bandias, S., Fuller, D., & Pfitzner, D. (2011). Vocational and higher education in Australia: A need for closer collaboration. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(6), 583-594. dot: 10.1080/1360080X.2011.621185.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the ‘true self’on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1) 33-48.
Bathmaker, A. M. (2017). Post-secondary education and training, new vocational and hybrid pathways and questions of equity, inequality and social mobility: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 69, 1—9. doi:10.1080/ 13636820.2017.1304680.
Bean, J. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention: Factors predicting the success of first- year, first semester students at Tennessee State University. Doctorate Dissertation, Tennessee State University.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE.
Beyer, С. H., Gillmore, G. M., & Fisher, A. T. (2007). Inside the undergraduate experience. The University of Washington’s study of undergraduate learning. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. InJ. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241—259). New York: Greenwordprcss.
Bramston, P., & Patrick, J. (2007). Rural adolescents experiencing an urban transition. Journal of Rural Health, 15, 247—251.
Braxton, J. M., Doyle, W., Hartley, H., Hirschy, S., Jones, W., & McLendon, M. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brinkworth, R., Burke da Silva, K., King, S., Luzeckyj, A., McCann, B., McCann, J., & Palmer, E. (2013). Student and staff experiences and expectations. Retrieved from http:// fyhe.com.au/expectations/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CG9-1158_Adelaide_Brinkworth_ Final-report_2013.pdf on September 20, 2020.
Cederberg, M. (2015). Embodied cultural capital and the study of ethnic inequalities. In L. Ryan, U. Erel, & A. D’Angelo (Eds.), Migrant capital: Networks, identities and strategies (pp. 33-47). Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cote, J. (2005). Identity capital, social capital and the wider benefits of learning: Generating resources facilitative of social cohesion. London Review of Education, 3 (3), 221-237.
Down, B., Smyth, J., & Robinson, J. (2018). Rethinking school-lo-work transitions in Australia: Young people have something to say. Singapore: Springer.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefit of Facebook ‘friends’: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1186.
Fernandez, A., Howse, E., Rubio-Valera, M., Thomcraft, K., Noone, J., Luu, X..... &
Salvador-Carulla, L. (2016). Setting-based interventions to promote mental health at the university: a systematic review. International Journal of Public Health, 61(7). 1—11. doi:10.1007/ S00038-016-0846-4.
Fleming, M., & Grace, D. (2017). Beyond aspirations: Addressing the unique barriers faced by rural Australian students contemplating university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(3), 351-363.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, В. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14—38.
Gatto, J. (2009). Weapons of mass instruction: A school teacher’s journey through the dark world of compulsory schooling. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Goller, M. (2017). Human agency at work: An active approach towards expertise development. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B. (2010). Young people, social capital and network-based educational decision-making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), 395—411. doi:l 0.1080/01425692.2010.484918.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359(1449), 1435—1446.
Hillman, K. (2018). PISA Australia in Focus no. 2: Educational expectations. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Holland, J., Reynolds, T., & Weller, S. (2007). Transitions, networks and communities: The significance of social capital in the lives of children and young people. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(1), 97-116. doi: 10.1080/13676260600881474.
Jorgensen, С. H. (2017). From apprenticeships to higher vocational education in Denmark - building bridges while the gap is widening. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 69, 64-80. doi: 10.1080/13636820.2016.1275030.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37, 58-71. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197.
Kahu, E., Stephens, C., Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2015). Linking academic emotions and student engagement: Mature-aged distance students’ transition to university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(4), 481-497. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2014.895305.
Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education: Final report for ALTC senior fellowship program. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://transitionpedagogy.com/wp-contcnt/uploads/2014/05/Kift-Sally- ALTC-Senior-Fellowship-Report-Sep-09.pdf on September 20, 2020.
King, S., Luzeckyj, A., McCann, B„ & Graham, C. (2015). Exploring the experience of being first in family at university. A 2014 Student Equity in Higher Education Research Grants Project. Retrieved from www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/exploring-the-experience-of- bcing-first-in-family-at-university/.
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & Mclnnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kyndt, E., Bcrghmans, I., Dochy, F., & Bulckens, L. (2014). ‘Time is not enough.’ Workload in higher education: A student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 684-698. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.863839.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, В. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(2004), 14-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005.
Mailman, M., & Lee, H. (2016). Stigmatised learners: Mature-age students negotiating university culture. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(5), 684—701. doi:10.1080/ 01425692.2014.973017.
Marginson, S. (2014). Student self-formation in international education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6—22. doi:10.1177/1028315313513036.
Marks, G. (2004). School sector differences in tertiary entrance: Improving the educational outcomes of government school students. Australian Social Monitor, 7(2), 43-47.
Marshall, M. J., and Stolle, D. (2004) Race and the city: Neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust. Political Behavior, 26, 125—153.
McGhie, V. (2017). Entering university studies: Identifying enabling factors for a successful transition from school to university. High Education, 73, 407-422. doi:10.1007/sl0734- 016-0100-2.
Mclnnis, C. (2001). Researching the first year experience: Where to from here? Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2), 105-114. doi:10.1080/07294360125188.
McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2014). ‘Uni has a different language ... to the real world’: demystifying academic culture and discourse for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 949-961. doi:10.1080/ 07294360.2014.890570.
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Employability during unemployment: Adaptability, career identity and human and social capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2007), 247-264. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.003.
Nannestad, P., Svendsen, G. L. H., & Svendsen, G. T. (2008). Bridge over troubled water? Migration and social capital. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34 (4), 607-631.
Nelson, K., Clarke, J., Kift, S., & Creagh, T. (2011). Trends in policies, programs and practices in the Australasian first year experience literature 2000—2010 (The First Year in Higher Education Research Series on Evidence-based Practice, No. 1). Retrieved from
24_rogersjm_Desktop_FYHE_Research-Series_No-1_FIN_eBook_2012WM.pdf on September 20, 2020.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009). Jobs for oil: Initial report. Paris: OECD.
Orme, J., & Dooris, M. (2010). Integrating health and sustainability: the higher education sector as a timely catalyst. Health Education Research, 25(3), 425—437. doi:10.1093/hcr/ cyq020.
Perm, L. W. 2006. Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J. C. Smart, Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (99-157). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pham, T. (2014). Implementing cross-culture pedagogies: Cooperative learning at Confucian heritage cultures. Singapore: Springer.
Pham, T. (2020). Reconceptualise employability of returnees: What really matters and strategic navigating approaches. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/sl0734-020-00614-2.
Pham, T., & Jackson, D. (2020). Employability and determinants of employment outcomes. In N. Tran, T. Pham, M. Tomlinson, K. Medica, & C. Thompson (Eds.), Developing and utilizing employability capitals: Graduates’ strategies across labour markets (pp. 237—255). Netherlands: Routledge.
Pham, T., & Pham, L. (2017). An analysis of small group interactions of local students under the Bourdieusian theoretical lens: The case of Vietnamese higher education students. Higher Education Research and Development. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1370437.
Pham, T., Tomlinson, M., & Thompson, C. (2019). Forms of capital and agency as mediations in negotiating employability of international graduate migrants. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(17), 394—405. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Raffe, D. 2003. Pathways linking education and work: A review of concepts, research, and policy debates. Journal of Youth Studies, 6(1), 3-19. doi:10.1080/1367626032000068136.
Reay, D., David, M., & Ball, S. (2001). Making a difference? Institutional habituses and higher education choice. Sociological Research Online, 5(4), 14—12. doi:10.5153/sro.548.
Rogers, M., Creed, P., Searle, J., & Nicholls, S. (2015). Coping with medical training demands: thinking of dropping out, or in it for the long haul. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1-18. doi:l0.1080/03075079.2014.999318.
Ryan, J., Johnson, G., & Billett, S. (2012). Researching transition experiences in Australian senior schooling. In S. Billett, G. Johnson, S. Thomas, C. Sim, & S. Hay, Experiences of school transitions: Policies, practice and participants (pp. 165—178). Singapore: Springer.
Ryan, L., Ercl, U., & D’Angelo, A. (2015). Introduction: Understanding ‘Migrant capital’. In L. Ryan, U. Erel, & A. D’Angelo (Eds.), Migrant capital: Networks, identities and strategies (pp. 3-17). Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, E., & Kcmmis, R. (2014). Credit transfer from VET to higher education: A pathways policy meets a roadblock. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 19(2), 230—244. doi:10.1080/ 13596748.2014.897517.
Snee, H., & Devine, F. (2014). Taking the next step: Class, resources and educational choice across the generations. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(8), 998-1013.
Stallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. American Psychologist, 45, 249—257.
Teese, R. (2007). Structural inequality in Australian education: Vertical and lateral stratification of opportunity. In R. Teese, S. Lamb, & M. Duru-Bellat (Eds.), International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy (pp. 39-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Teese, R., & Polesel, J. (2003). Undemocratic schooling: Equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia. Carlton, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
Tholen, G. (2015). What can research into graduate employability tell us about agency and structure? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(5), 766—784.
Tholen, G., Brown, P., Power, S., & Allouch, A. (2013). The role of networks and connections in educational elites’ labour market entrance. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 34, 142-154. doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2013.10.003.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Rev Educ Res, 65(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving. Exploring the role of the college classroom in student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 81—94). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education + Training, 59(4), 338-352.
Walker, M., Pongwa, S., & SpringerLink (Online service). (2017). Universities, employ- ability and human development. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/ login?url=https://link.springer.com/10.1057/978-1-137-58452-6 on March 10, 2020.
Watt, S. E., & Badger, A. J. (2009). Effects of social belonging on homesickness: Application of the belongingness hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 516—530.
Wood, G. (2005). Time to learn: How to create high schools that serve all students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wyn, J., Cuervo, H., & Landstedt, E. (2015). The limits of wellbeing. In K. Wright, & J. McLeod (Eds.), Rethinking youth wellbeing: Critical perspectives. Singapore: Springer.