Capturing Individual and Institutional Change: Exploring Horizontal

Capturing Individual and Institutional Change: Exploring Horizontal versus Vertical Transitions in Technology-Rich Environments Andreas Gegenfurtner1, Markus Nivala1, Roger Säljö1,2, and Erno Lehtinen1 1

University of Turku, Centre for Learning Research, Assistentinkatu 7, 20014 Turku, Finland 2 University of Gothenburg, Department of Education, Läroverksgatan 15, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. Popular approaches in the learning sciences understand the concept of learning as permanent or semi-permanent changes in how individuals think and act. These changes can be traced very differently, depending on whether the context is stable or dynamic. The purpose of this poster is to introduce a distinction between horizontal and vertical transitions that can be used to describe individual and institutional change in technology-rich environments. We argue that these two types of transitions trace different phenomena: Vertical transitions occur when individuals, technologies, or domains develop in stable and fixed conditions within set boundaries. In contrast, horizontal transitions occur when individuals, technologies, or domains mature in the synergy with other fields. We develop our argument by working through relevant studies in medicine, and close by outlining implications for future research on professional technology enhanced learning. Keywords: technology, change, professional learning, expertise, humanmachine systems.

1 Introduction Popular approaches in the learning sciences understand the concept of learning as permanent or semi-permanent changes in how individuals think and act. The analysis of these changes is however challenging as the face of learning currently undergoes some substantial changes: These changes relate to the technologies for learning and the technologies at work, along with respective learning contexts and pedagogical models. An important aim of technology enhanced learning (TEL) is to understand the mechanisms and functions of the individual, social, and contextual development associated with technological tools. These developments are not always linear bottom-to-top movements; they also involve side steps. Changes in the individual and changes in the context are multi-directional, although this has been rarely addressed in past research. Several authors state that there is a need to learn more about the dialectics between vertical and horizontal transitions in the development of expertise [1,2], and how the institutional context shapes learning with technology [3]. U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, and M. Specht (Eds.): EC-TEL 2009, LNCS 5794, pp. 676–681, 2009. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Capturing Individual and Institutional Change

677

The purpose of this poster is to introduce a distinction between what we term horizontal and vertical transitions that can be used to capture individual and institutional change in technology-rich environments. This distinction is seen as a methodological tool in that it directs our attention to the analytical practice. We argue that research on both vertical and horizontal transitions has merits and makes valuable contributions to advance our understanding of how to analyze change in technology-rich environments; both have their own explanatory power. Nonetheless, research investigating these transitions differs completely in its focus; while studies on vertical transitions employ a specific focus on individuals within one single domain or on a single tool, studies on horizontal transitions employ a broader perspective in that they extend their focus beyond a single domain or technology. A major problem however is that, in past research, both transitions are mixed up easily. We argue that although vertical and horizontal transitions in technology-rich environments go hand in hand, and thus can be reconciled to same extent, they should not be intermingled blindly: From an analytical stance, we argue that studies investigating vertical or horizontal transitions follow very different strategies and aims. To structure our argument on vertical and horizontal transitions, our discussion is organized in two sections. First, we discuss the concept of horizontal and vertical transitions in more detail. How does the individual and the institutional context change in technology-rich environments? How can this change be captured and analyzed? To illustrate an answer to these questions, we have chosen some significant studies in the domain of medical image diagnosis. Medicine is—among others—one example of a dynamic domain owing to its constant technological progress, and thus useful to show how learning and development occur under conditions of change. Second, we discuss implications of the proposed analytical distinction for future work in professional TEL, and how the analysis of horizontal and vertical transitions can add value for researching what it means to learn with and from technology.

2 Horizontal versus Vertical Transitions in Technology-Rich Environments In order to provide a detailed account for what we term horizontal and vertical transitions, we will focus on two levels: the individual and the institutional context in which the individual is embedded in. From an analytical perspective, the individual and the context are separated here for the sake of discussion. Our argument is put forward in the next two paragraphs by discussing individual and institutional change. 2.1 Individual Change Individual change in technology-rich environments is highly associated with technology. The interaction with technological tools and artifacts in different activities at work can trigger individual trajectories and stimulate the development of expertise. We focus here on individual trajectories although we acknowledge that these can be also related to a collective or an organizational level. Here, the individual development on a continuum of expertise can be traced as a vertical and a horizontal transition. Each is described in turn.

678

A. Gegenfurtner et al.

Traditionally, learning and the development of expertise in high-tech domains has been studied vertically by focusing on the development from novice to expert. The focus is on individual skill acquisition along a continuum of competence development. A typical assumption from studies investigating vertical transitions of an individual is that the institutional context, where the individual is working or learning in, is stable. We argue that such a perspective is useful for analyzing individual differences in routine tasks or in situations where rules are set. Examples for studies investigating individual vertical transitions can be found in classical expertise research, in domains that have reached a sufficient state of maturity. For example, in medicine, the reading of X-ray pictures with its roots back in the 19th century has been one of the most extensively studied tasks [4,5]. X-ray images remained rather constant over decades, and they even today afford the analysis of anatomical features based on grey-scale pictorial representations. Studies have mainly focused on individual differences in decision making, perceptual processes, and the representation of knowledge by comparing novices, intermediates, and experts. These comparisons are typically made in relation to a previously established “best practice”, thus treating the context as something relatively stable. Questions that are usually addressed in studies tracing vertical transitions relate to what are the characteristics of expertise on different skill levels? How can the development from novice to expert in a routine task be explained? Studies tracing horizontal transitions of the individual pose different questions, based on a different underlying assumption. Unlike to studies in stable environments, the interest here is in understanding how individuals adapt to non-routine tasks that emerge through contextual changes. To what extent are skills acquired in routine tasks transferable to non-routine tasks? The focus is on the transfer and generalizability of skills. A typical assumption from studies investigating horizontal transitions of an individual is that the institutional context is dynamic. We argue that such a perspective is useful in technology-rich environments, in order to analyze how professionals react to and cope with contextual changes. Examples for studies investigating individual horizontal transitions are surprisingly rare, although cases can be easily found in dynamic technology-rich domains. For example, in nuclear medicine, the technological standard has used to be positron emission tomography (PET). Recently however, PET has been combined with computer tomography (CT), a technology used in radiology. Physicians in nuclear medicine who have been able to analyze positron emission tomography (PET) images can now extend their skills horizontally to analyze also PET/CT images by crossing the boundaries to radiology. This boundary-crossing helps them adapt to changes in the technical domain standard. To summarize, individual change in technology-rich work environments is associated with technology. Depending on the persistence or change in the technology or domain, individuals can learn through vertical and horizontal transitions. We argue that stable conditions afford vertical learning through the mastering of routine tasks. On the other hand, dynamic conditions afford horizontal transitions through the adaptation to non-routine tasks. While we argue that both vertical and horizontal transitions account for different socio-cognitive processes, they of course complement each other. Specifically, radiologists who became experts in diagnosing X-ray images can also become experts in diagnosing PET/CT images; these two vertical movements are connected through a horizontal shift from one technology to another. We should also


679

note that this shift requires a certain amount of willingness and motivation to be done. How do employees in technology-rich environments regulate their motivation? And which goals and motivational profiles support or impede transitory steps? Future research can address these questions along with the mutual complementarities of vertical and horizontal transitions that constitute individual change. 2.2 Institutional Change Institutional change in technology-rich environments is highly associated with technology. Although the institutional context can be traced on many more levels than just on the level of technology, we argue that changes in work practices, policies, communities, division of labor, or the domain as a whole are mainly following from technological changes. We illustrate this argument with two examples from medicine as a technology-rich environment: (1) the case of MRI as a vertical transition and (2) changing technologies in nuclear medicine and radiology as horizontal transitions. First, vertical transitions can be captured by focusing on one specific tool that is used in a particular domain. Questions that are usually addressed in studies tracing vertical transitions relate to how a technique has developed since its introduction, and how respectively what kind of institutional routines have emerged as a response to the development of the technical tool. In medicine, [6] analyzes the vertical transitions magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has gone through since its development in the 1970s. First, its name changed from zeugmatography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging to the today established name of MRI. Second, MRI data representation changed from a numerical data output to a pictorial data output. In radiology departments, where MRI apparatuses have been installed, this has caused changes in work practices and also challenged the professional identity of radiologists. The implementation of MRI forced radiologists to adapt their work practices and to reconstitute their professional identities: New interpretation skills were required to make meaning of those new representations, and to handle the scanners appropriately. Since MRI makes no use of radiation, it was unclear if these apparatuses should be installed in radiology departments. Other departments raised a claim for the new techniques and with it a claim for the visual authority to analyze these digital pictures [7]. This example in radiology exemplifies how the transformation of imaging tools implies changes in current work practices which in turn demands professionals to renegotiate and re-organize their expertise, both in terms of individual knowledge and of their identity as a well-established discipline. In sum, the analysis of the vertical transition of one technology has the potential to uncover also the trajectories of institutional routines and how they develop over time. The second avenue to capture institutional change is to analyze horizontal transitions. This can be done by focusing on how a technological tool develops through connections to neighboring domains or by focusing on how a domain as a scientific discipline matures over time. Questions that can be addressed in studies tracing horizontal transitions relate to how a domain becomes more interdisciplinary through the introduction of a technology. How do technologies afford synergies and boundarycrossings to other domains? In medicine, horizontal transitions occur frequently through the evolution of imaging technologies. For example, as described above, nuclear medicine has faced the evolution of its technical domain standard from positron

680

A. Gegenfurtner et al.

emission tomography (PET) to a joint PET/CT image. This is seen as a horizontal transition since it involves a side step to a neighboring domain: PET/CT converges radiologic and nuclear medicine routines to produce and interpret medical images; it cuts across any neat boundaries between these two medical sub-specialties; and it creates a new stream from novice to expert in handling a new technical tool, associated with its emerging work practices and policies. Besides PET, another example is the shift from traditional X-ray technique to tomosynthesis, a new technology in which the images represent the anatomy of the lungs; the image is projected threedimensionally. Since tomosynthesis represents an improvement in the technology for diagnosing cancer in comparison to ordinary X-ray, and since the costs and radiation dose are lower than in the case of computer tomography (CT), the benefits for healthcare and patients promise to be considerable. To make full use of this technological advancement, however, it is important to further our understanding of how professionals develop expertise in using it, i.e. the very process in which they reason and make critical distinctions on how significant signs can be identified and how these should be classified. It is also interesting to trace how the introduction of a digital imaging technique in radiology departments ruptures current work practices associated with an analogous imaging technique. To summarize, institutional change in technology-rich environments is highly associated with technology. We argue that horizontal and vertical transitions of the institutional context refer to different phenomena, and they each occur under different conditions. While vertical transitions describe how a certain technology develops within a stable environment with fixed rules and clear boundaries, horizontal transitions describe how technologies and domains develop by crossing these boundaries to other technologies or domains.

3 Closing Remarks The purpose of this poster has been to introduce a distinction between horizontal and vertical transitions that can be used to capture individual and institutional change in technology-rich environments. We have argued that vertical and horizontal transitions account for different phenomena and they occur in different settings, depending on whether the context is stable or dynamic: Vertical transitions occur when individuals, technologies, or domains develop in stable and fixed conditions within set boundaries. In contrast, horizontal transitions occur when individuals, technologies, or domains mature by extending to other fields. Both transitions can and should be analyzed separately to capture micro- and macro-processes of development and change. It will be a goal for future research to identify when and how vertical and horizontal transitions intersect in the generation of learning. In closing, we discuss two implications of the proposed distinction for future work in professional TEL. First, the distinction in vertical / horizontal transitions indicates the multidirectional nature of individual and institutional development. It would be quite erroneous to assume that these developments are one-way streets. With the current speed of change in technology-rich environments, it is likely that almost every professional faces the challenge of adapting to completely new tools during one’s career. Changes can occur even in domains that seemed to be extremely stable for decades. The added


681

value the vertical-horizontal distinction brings is hence associated with advancing our understanding on the multidirectional dialectics between the individual, the technology, and the broader institutional context in which both are enacted [1,2,7]. The second implication for future research relates to the ‘where’, i.e. the learning spaces in which vertical and horizontal transitions can be found. Multidirectional processes of learning occur frequently outside of school settings. [8] highlighted that the TEL community has invested maybe too much attention on technology-enhanced education and learning in formal institutions, and that they, we, need far more knowledge on learning occurring in informal settings. Hence, the workplace as a learning space becomes a central environment in which we can analyze the multi-directionality of individual and institutional development associated with technology. This is not to disregard the relevance of formal contexts; however, learning pathways over time and space, i.e. vertical and horizontal transitions, can also be addressed in realworld situations such as those arising in corporate technology-rich work settings. To conclude, both implications point to the challenge of capturing individual and institutional change which is due to the multi-directionality of both the mechanisms and the functions of individual, social, and contextual development associated with technological tools in professional work contexts.

References 1. Arnseth, H.C., Ludvigsen, S.: Approaching Institutional Contexts: Systemic versus Dialogic Research in CSCL. Int. J. CSCL 1, 167–185 (2006) 2. Sutherland, R., Lindström, B., Lahn, L.C.: Socio-Cultural Perspectives on TechnologyEnhanced Learning and Knowing. In: Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S. (eds.) Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and Products, pp. 39–54. Springer, Berlin (2009) 3. Ludvigsen, S.R., Havnes, A., Lahn, L.C.: Workplace Learning across Activity Systems: A Case Study of Sales Engineers. In: Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y. (eds.) Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary-Crossing, pp. 291–310. Pergamon, Amsterdam (2003) 4. Lesgold, A., Glaser, R., Rubinson, H., Klopfer, D., Feltovich, P., Wang, Y.: Expertise in a Complex Skill: Diagnosing X-ray Pictures. In: Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., Farr, M.J. (eds.) The Nature of Expertise, pp. 311–342. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1988) 5. Morita, J., Miwa, K., Kitasaka, T., Mori, K., Suenaga, Y., Iwano, S., et al.: Interactions of Perceptual and Conceptual Processing: Expertise in Medical Image Diagnosing. Int. J. Hum-Comput. St. 66, 370–390 (2008) 6. Joyce, K.A.: From Numbers to Pictures: The Development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Visual Turn in Medicine. Science as Culture 15, 1–22 (2006) 7. Burri, R.V., Dumit, J.: Social Studies of Scientific Imaging and Visualizations. In: Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. (eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 297–317. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008) 8. Pea, R.: Fostering Learning in the Networked World. Keynote presentation at the Third European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Maastricht (2008)