Paper presented at the Fifth International Basil Bernstein Symposium Cardiff School of Social Sciences 9-12 July 2008 Ian Robertson RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Exploring the dynamics that Shape Teacher’s E-Learning Practices: An Application of Basil Bernstein’s Pedagogic Device Abstract The use of e-learning technologies has been promoted and supported for more than a decade. These technologies support a range of functions that include the distribution of resources, communications and assessment. Whilst analysis of data related to the level of uptake and use of elearning by teachers is not uncommon, the question of how teacher’s practice emerges when elearning is implemented remains largely unexplored. This paper reports and builds on doctoral work (Robertson, 2006) to show that, at the macro level, Bernstein’s pedagogic device and recontextualisation are useful in conceptualising the dynamics that shape teacher’s practice when e-learning is integrated into teaching. Through interpretations of the official and pedagogic recontextualising fields the contest that occurs at the interface of the two is made explicit. At a micro level, in combination with literature on values, beliefs, personal practical theories and diffusion theory the pedagogic recontextualising field is operationalised to create a model that represents the mechanisms that underpin the emergence of specific instructional practices. Using three case examples to demonstrate the operation of the model, it is shown that in the absence of overwhelming official influence, teachers are active agents in determining teaching practices. This may manifest in two ways. Teachers may be active in integrating online technology in a way that is consistent with their preferred teaching principles. Alternatively, where a teacher’s desire to use online technology outweighs their desire to implement their preferred teaching principles they may be active agents in compromising their own preferred principles.

INTRODUCTION The use of e-learning, that is, digital and networked technologies to support teaching and learning has been promoted and supported for more than a decade. These technologies support a range of functions that include the distribution of resources, communications and assessment. Whilst analysis of data related to the level of uptake and use of e-learning by teachers is not uncommon, how teacher’s practice is shaped when they integrate e-learning into their practice has remained largely unexplored.

1

What differentiates networked from stand-alone digital technology is the capacity of networks to cause us to rethink our conceptions of pedagogy in terms of space, time and interconnections (Edwards and Usher, 2000). Bernstein foreshadowed the emergence of a totally pedagogised society as a consequence of such changes (Singh, 2001). The current paper reports and builds on doctoral work that used Basil Bernstein’s pedagogic device as a conceptual framework to inform an exploration of the dynamics that shape vocational teacher’s practice when they integrate online technology into their teaching (Robertson, 2006). In specific, the notion of recontextualisation provides a means through which to recognise that individuals practice occurs within local and discipline based networks, institutional contexts and within the broader social, cultural and economic context. Castells (1996, p.500) conceptualises the capacity of information technology to support a society constructed of ‘a network of interconnected nodes’. That is, sites of intersection through which information flows and where nodes operate as switches with the capacity to control the flow of information (Castells, 1996). In Bernstein’s terms, nodes can be conceived as pedagogic devices, and those who control the pedagogic device have the capacity to enable or suppress what constitutes legitimate pedagogic discourse (Bernstein, 1996, Bernstein, 2000). The emergence of elearning has reconceptualised teaching practices and produced a struggle for control of the emergent pedagogic device. In combination with the literature on values, beliefs, personal practical theories (Marland, 1998) and diffusion theory (Rogers, 1995) it is shown that Bernstein’s pedagogic device is useful in conceptualising the dynamics that shape teacher’s practice when e-learning is integrated into teaching. Through interpretations of the official and pedagogic recontextualising fields the contest that occurs at the interface of the two is operationalised. RESEARCH METHOD Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven teachers. Participants were purposively sampled according to criteria that made them useful informants. These were qualified teachers who had used online technology as part of their teaching practice. Represented by five females and two males, four work in the metropolitan area and three in regional centres. They come from the disciplines of English as a second language, marketing, e-business, hospitality, tourism, and interior design. In the first phase of the interview, each participant was asked to talk about their teaching background and how they came to the use of online technology. These questions were used to collect demographic data and to ease the participant into the interview. Data were used as background to inform interpretation of the remainder of the interview. In the second phase of the interview, participants were asked to describe how they used technology in their current practice. Supplementary questions were asked about the factors that influenced their practice. These data were used to provide information on factors that participants believed influenced their general teaching practices as well as factors that influenced their use of technology in a positive or negative way.

2

In the third phase of the interview, participants were asked to respond to a scenario that provided them with an opportunity to identify their ‘ideal’ teaching program and the role of online technology in that program. Participants were briefed that there was no assumption that the ideal program would be technology based, and that the degree to which the technology was used was entirely at their discretion. Supplementary questions were asked for clarification where necessary. This question was used to identify the principles that underpinned their use of online technology in an ideal scenario. The need for informants to make deep-seated notions of what constitutes good teaching practice explicit created a methodological dilemma for the research. That is, deep-seated notions are likely to be tacit and difficult to explicate (Marland, 1997). As a solution, having talked in mostly descriptive terms about teaching generally, and the use of online technology specifically, each participant was asked to identify a metaphor to represent their preferred teaching practices. Subsequent questions were asked to elicit what they valued in the metaphor. This approach is consistent with the idea that metaphors are mental representations (Borko and Putnam, 1995) that are useful in ‘making sense of one experience or phenomena in terms of another’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p.117). It is a research approach that has been used in a number of studies (See for example, Bullough, 1991, McShane, 2002, Sumision, 2002, Robertson, 2003). Interview data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis to develop provisional findings and grounded theory that informed the research as it emerged (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, Merriam, 1998, Merriam, 2002, Corbin and Strauss, 2008). These findings were checked with the research participants, enabling refinement and the co-construction of knowledge. Throughout the research, trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was assured through prolonged engagement, data sources, peer review and maintenance of an audit trail. The initial development of grounded theory is generally credited to Glaser and Strauss in the 1967 publication The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, Merriam, 1998, Charmaz, 2000, Goldkuhl and Cronholm, 2003) which discouraged the use of pre-existing theoretical categories or theories until data were collected, analysed and coded. In the research reported here pre-existing theory has been carried into the study as supported by Strauss and Corbin (1994). Existing literature and theory is treated as data with similar status to the data collected through interviews. That is, existing theory is not treated as a priori. Initially, data derived from interviews were held apart from the existing literature, as the research progressed the concepts derived from data analysis were juxtaposed with existing theory to interrogate its usefulness in developing grounded theory. In this way existing theory is interrogated, elaborated and modified through the rigorous matching of theory against data. Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2003) describe this approach as multi-grounded theory. BASIL BERNSTEIN: PEDAGOGIC DEVICE AND RECONTEXTUALISATION Basil Bernstein’s theoretical corpus (Bernstein, 1996, Bernstein, 2000) was developed over a period of more than 40 years. His early work is grounded in the field of socio-linguistics where a concern for the lack of success of working class children in schools led to the development of the ideas of restricted and elaborated language codes. Moving from specific concern for educational failure to developing a larger sociological theory led to the publication of work on classification

3

and framing (Christie, 1999) which provides a means to analyse pedagogic events in terms of power and control respectively (Bernstein, 1971, Morais and Neves, 2001, Ensor, 2004). While classification and framing provided a means to analyse language codes, they do not assist in understanding how those codes are established and maintained. Bernstein’s development of the pedagogic device addressed this shortcoming. Other concepts that form part of Bernstein’s theoretical corpus include pedagogic identity which was proposed in his 1971 paper on classification and framing (Bernstein and Soloman, 1999). Bernstein’s work also raises the ideas of the totally pedagogised society (TPS) (Singh, 2001), and, horizontal and vertical discourse (Bernstein, 2000). These are not discussed further in the current paper. Here, discourse is defined as an institutionalised system of meaning making comprised of language and social forms of gestures and postures. Pedagogic discourse is the means through which instructional discourse is embedded in regulatory discourse. The pedagogic device provides the intrinsic grammar, in a metaphoric sense, and is the mechanism through which pedagogic discourse is established and maintained (Bernstein, 2000). The grammar of the pedagogic device is mediated through three interrelated and hierarchical rules: distributive rules; recontextualisation rules; and, evaluation rules. Those who own the device own the means of perpetuating their power through discursive means and establishing, or attempting to establish, their own ideological representations (Bernstein, 1996). For example, if we take the activity of using tools such as hammers, chisels and files to work with timber then a number of discourses may emerge. In the field of construction these include carpentry and cabinetmaking. In the field of art, sculpting and in education, woodwork. It is through the pedagogic device that emergent discourses are legitimised and the relationships between them are shaped. Therefore, appropriation of the pedagogic device is an expression of power which enables the establishment and maintenance of legitimate discourses and the relationships between them. Distribution rules distribute different forms of knowledge to different social groups thus determining who has access to what knowledge and under what conditions. They establish the limits of thinkable and unthinkable knowledge and thus the limits of legitimate discourse. Distribution rules give rise to recontextualising rules that regulate the formation of specific pedagogic discourse. Recontextualisation rules construct the thinkable, official knowledge and the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of pedagogic discourse. They give rise to evaluation rules that condense the meaning of the whole pedagogic device by providing the criteria that establish what counts as legitimate knowledge. In education this is formally achieved through assessment processes. Recontextualisation is influenced by two fields. Through the official recontextualising field (ORF) the state and its delegates operate at a generative level to legitimise official pedagogic discourse. This undergoes further recontextualisation through the pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF) when policy is interpreted and implemented by those who are directly involved in teaching. Whilst the state legitimises the principles of distribution of social power and control which are incorporated into the official pedagogic discourse these principles undergo further recontextualisation at the level of the transmitters’ discourse and then at the level of acquisition (Soloman and Tsatsaroni, 2001).

4

The PRF is represented in the espoused principles of those who influence the pedagogic transaction. In the case of traditional classroom-based teaching, agents of the PRF include teachers and authors of texts that are used by students. In the case of the use of technology, the PRF is also influenced by the assumptions embedded in the technology used and the digital resources that are provided for teaching. In the next section of this paper, a model representing the dynamics that shape vocational teacher’s practice when online technology is integrated into teaching is presented. Through Bernstein (1996, 2000) the pedagogic device provides a means to theorise emergent pedagogic discourse and to examine the contest for control of pedagogic discourse at the interface between the ORF and PRF.

MODELLING THE DYNAMICS THAT SHAPE TEACHER’S PRACTICE At the macro level, the model presented (Figure 1) contains four elements. The outer sphere of ‘official influences’ is informed by Bernstein’s official recontextualising field (ORF). The inner sphere of ‘teacher influences’ is informed by Bernstein’s pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF). The broken line between the outer and inner spheres represents the transactional nature of the relationship between official and teacher influences. The curved arrows represent the dynamic nature of the relationship between the two fields.

Official Influences The outer sphere of the model, ‘official influences’ is informed by Bernstein’s official recontextualising field (ORF). In Bernstein’s terms, agents in the field of official influences legitimise a pool of pedagogic possibilities that are consistent with and will reproduce the ideology supported by the official field. With the exception of radical teachers who practice beyond the scope of officially legitimised pedagogic possibilities, teacher’s specific instructional practices will be consistent with the legitimised ‘pool of pedagogic possibilities’. For example, if the legitimised pedagogic pool is consistent with a behaviorist approach to competency based training then teachers will adopt specific instructional practices that support competency based training. These might include the use of pre-prepared learning materials that are outcomes based and assessment on demand that is criterion based. A range of official influence that affect teaching practice are found in the interviews with the research participants and are incorporated into Figure 1. These include regional and organisational policy, organisational support, external agencies, curriculum and the characteristics of endorsed software. The research participants generally inferred influences of national and state policy through remarks about organisational arrangements at an institutional level. Given that the focus of the interviews was on teaching practice and the activities of these teachers were at an institutional level this might not be surprising. To the extent that these factors are heavily influenced by national and state policy there is an implicit relationship between these policies and teaching practice. All participants teach in programs with centrally endorsed competency-based outcomes and refer to the curriculum in order to develop course materials and assessment. The research participants identify

5

organisational support in the form of availability of resources such as time, curriculum hours, timetabling, computer and classroom facilities as influential in determining their teaching practice.

Figure 1: The dynamics of official and teacher influences (Source: Robertson, 2006, p.177)

Teacher Influences When teachers are exposed to a pool of pedagogic possibilities they may adopt differing specific instructional practices. The inner sphere of the model, ‘teacher influences’ is informed by Bernstein’s ‘pedagogic recontextualising field’ (PRF) and proposes a representation of how, faced with the same policy imperatives, teachers practice is shaped. The model proposes that teachers come to their practice with an established and implicit set of preferred teaching principles which are represented by a variety of constructs such as values, beliefs, personal and practical theories provide the basis for what teachers do and how they do it (Borko and Putnam, 1995, Marland, 1997, Marland, 1998, Errington, 2001) . Despite terminology differences, what is common to these concepts is that they are well established by the time of leaving secondary school and resistant to change (Pajares, 1992). Beginning teachers bring a wealth of experience as a student to their teaching. As a result of these experiences they have

6

developed ideas and beliefs about teaching and learning and these drive practice (Combs, 1982, Chin, 1997). Mediated through a ‘lens of disposition’ teacher’s preferred teaching practices are operationalised through specific instructional practices. When integrating online technology into teaching variations in specific instructional practices are achieved through three strategies. Firstly, variation in the specific online functionalities adopted. In the research reported here all research participants use online technology for individual email, Internet searches and as a repository for course materials. One participant uses a bulletin board and another has integrated audio into her technology based resources. Three use online technology as a repository for assignments/projects and two participants have incorporated computer marked tests into their online resources. The second variable is the application of online technology to teaching and/or assessment. Two participants use online technology to support both teaching and assessment. One participant uses online technology to support teaching only, and another to support assessment only. The third variable is the level of integration of online technology into practice. In one case the use of online technology by students is optional, in all other cases students are required to use some aspects of online technology to complete their program. The model accommodates the proposal that once established, an individual’s values and beliefs about what constitutes good teaching practice is unlikely to change and is a significant influence on how teachers practice (Pajares, 1992, Errington, 2001, Errington, 2004). However, observation of teacher’s practice suggests that the specific practices of teachers do change over time as they integrate online technology into their practice. The model proposes that these changes are the result of the teacher’s change in disposition towards the technology. This change is mediated through the ‘lens of disposition’. Where a teacher uses e-learning technology, feedback from the experience will maintain, strengthen or weaken the level of disposition towards the use of e-learning technology and inform future use of technology within practice. Thus whilst, preferred teaching practices may not fundamentally change, the specific instructional practices that manifest may alter as teachers become more or less confident and more or less disposed to the use of technology. The Interface between Official and Teacher Influences The model proposes that teacher's pedagogic influences operate against a background of official influences which legitimise a pedagogic pool from which specific instructional practices are drawn. With the exception of ‘radical teachers’ who ignore official policy, teachers develop specific instructional practices that are consistent with the legitimate pedagogic pool. This relationship, is however not static and the model intends to represent a dynamic relationship between official and teacher influences. Dependent upon the balance of influence of the official and teacher fields the relationship between preferred teaching principles and specific instructional practices vary. In some cases specific instructional practices are consistent with preferred teaching practices, in others, they are inconsistent. The dynamics that shape these relationships are demonstrated through the three case examples of teachers under the pseudonyms of Lim, John and Susan. These cases have been selected as their practice is representative of the research group. Importantly, they have been selected as their

7

teaching practice involves more than one teaching space. For each teacher, the relationship between specific instructional practices, preferred teaching principles, official influences and teacher influences differ. As a consequence, the factors that shape practice in each teaching space provide a useful comparison.

CASE EXAMPLES In all cases, the respondents demonstrate a positive disposition towards the use of online technology. Their adoption of online technology to support teaching has either been self-initiated in the absence of management support, or as a result of being identified as someone with an interest in the use of online technology, being offered and accepting an opportunity to become involved in a management sponsored project. These individuals can be described as early adopters (Rogers, 1995). Each became involved in the use of online technology early in its introduction, despite a lack of initial skills and difficulties with emerging technology they have persisted with its use. The concepts of classification and framing have been used by others to examine and describe teacher’s practice in respect to relationships, selection and sequence of content, pacing and evaluation criteria (Morais and Neves, 2001, Ensor, 2004). These ideas have informed the construction of the following vignettes and could have been used in their description. However, explicit use of the language of classification and framing is not used in an attempt to reflect the ‘stories’ of the participants and to retain a focus on the pedagogic device and recontextualisation which are central to the research. Lim Lim uses the self-declared metaphor of ‘Being a Friend’. She aspires to promoting social interaction, meeting the personal needs of individuals, catering for differing learning styles, reduction, repetition and scaling. She aims to create cordial teacher-student relationships and encourages student-student co-operation. She uses online technology to support teaching in the Certificate III/IV in English Language Studies and the Occupational Preparatory Programs. English Language Studies is a full-time, campus-based program. The curriculum requires the achievement of specified competencies. However, the ways in which these are to be demonstrated are not prescribed. Learners are new to Australia and supporting their settlement is seen as an important outcome of the program. This is a face-to-face program that incorporates the use of online technology. Lim suggests that the discipline of teaching English Language Studies is based on a well established and recognised teaching model that is consistent with her preferred teaching principles of reduction, repetition and scaling. The online resources for English Language Studies are developed and delivered using WebCT. This learning management system and the design of the materials also support reduction, repetition and scaling. The online resources integrate text, graphics and audio exercises.

8

Whilst the online resources show no evidence of design for social interaction or of meeting the personal needs of learners Lim’s description of her classroom-based teaching practice suggests that these principles are achieved in her face-to-face classes. She caters to individual learning styles through the use of multiple learning activities. Classes shift between face-to-face and online activities. Whilst initially highly teacher-directed, learners are encouraged to take control over their learning as time progresses. She attempts to get to know each of the learners and to make allowances for their personal needs which are often complex. The organisation that Lim works for encourages the use of online technology in English Language Studies but does not see these as a replacement for face-to-face teaching. Classes are scheduled on a regular basis. In Bernstein’s terms there is a high level of congruence between the pedagogic pool legitimised by official influences that affect Lim’s English Language Studies teaching and the preferred teaching principles that she brings to her practice. Lim’s preferred teaching principles of catering for a range of learning styles, reduction, repetition and scaling are congruent with the normative practices of English Language Studies and the use of WebCT for online resources. The nature of the curriculum, which allows adaptation to individual needs whilst requiring the achievement of predetermined outcomes is flexible enough to be consistent with Lim’s desire to meet individual learning needs. Her desire to support the personal needs of learners is not inconsistent with the policy of her employing organisation in terms of timetabling, the level of organisational support in terms of facilities and resources is not seen as a barrier to implementation. In the case of English Language Studies, where agents of the official recontextualising field are consistent with her preferred teaching principles, Lim’s specific instructional practices are consistent with her preferred teaching principles. Lim also uses online technology to support the Occupational Preparatory Program. This program prepares adult learners for the Police Entry Examination. By default, those who determine the assessment requirements of the Police Entry Examination also determine the content of the Occupational Preparatory Program which is divided into the areas of writing, English skills, reasoning, mathematics, spelling and interview preparation. The program is allocated 20 hours of curriculum time. With the exception of a single induction session, the learners study off-campus using online resources. Participants submit some text-based assessment by email to tutors for marking. In practice, the Occupational Preparatory Program curriculum, and the use of WebCT to develop and deliver online resources, accommodates the teaching principles of reduction, repetition and scaling. Attempts to cater for differring learning styles are limited to the use of text, graphics and audio. There is no attempt to promote social interaction or to meet the personal needs of learners. These constraints are contrary to the inferred teaching principle of ‘nurturing’ and the humanist leanings of Lim’s self-declared metaphor of ‘Being a Friend’. In this case, the official influences of curriculum and the use of WebCT are consistent with Lim’s preferred teaching principles of reduction, repetition, scaling and meeting individual needs through the use of text, graphic, images and multiple opportunities to complete quizzes are accommodated. Although Lim cites the limited number of curriculum hours as an official influence that constrains the ability to incorporate social interaction into the Occupational Preparatory Program, this would seem to be a justification rather than a legitimate reason. When this dissonance is pointed out to 9

Lim she suggests that the age and employment status of the participants and the instrumental nature of the course limit the demand for social interaction. Where learners require assistance it can be requested. However, there is no systematic use of communications beyond the submission of assignments for marking. In this case Lim’s specific instructional practices are not entirely consistent with her preferred teaching principles, this relationship exists in an environment where official influences have not overwhelmed teacher influences. Lim has been prepared to compromise her preferred teaching principles in the presence of an opportunity to use online technology. John John aspires to the teaching principles of learning through discussion and meeting the needs of individual learners. He uses the metaphor of ‘Mission Control’ seeing his role as a conduit for the flow of information with filtering when necessary and breaking complex ideas into bite-sized chunks. John prefers to maintain overall control, he establishes the core content which is taught then provides some flexibility in the details of the content, sequence and pace of learning. He teaches in the Certificate III in Business. Interview and examination of John’s learning materials reveal a number of official influences that shape his use of online technology. The curriculum is competency based with specific assessment requirements and John’s employing organisation requires that teaching practice is consistent with a lecture-tutorial approach. John is also the co-ordinator of the Certificate III in Business and he is the only full-time teacher. Where multiple classes of the same course are taught, casual teachers require access to course materials. John’s employing organisation accepts international students who frequently arrive in Australia after the commencement of the course. They need access to course materials in order to catch up with local students who have started their course a few weeks earlier. John uses online technology as a repository for notes, presentations and quizzes. This practice is a way to organise a set of common resources that they are accessible to students and casual teachers. As these resources also represent course content and assessment practices they are also useful in meeting quality assurance requirements. The organisational policy of adopting a lecture-tutorial format has effectively created two teachinglearning spaces. John maintains a strong level of insulation between the teaching practices of each. Whilst organisational policy has limited John’s teaching autonomy in the lecture-based space it also provides an opportunity for teacher autonomy in tutorial-based space. It is here that he is able to operationalise his preferred teaching principles. For lectures, John develops content notes. He is in full control of the content, pace and sequence of the session and accesses online resources for projection of presentations. Students can access these resources online at any time but their use is optional and at the discretion of the learner. John ensures that students are provided with hard copies of any resources that they require. In the case of international students who arrive in Australia after classes have commenced, learners are directed to these resources as a way of ‘catching up’.

10

In the case of lectures, the agents of the official recontextualising field have legitimised a pedagogic pool that disadvantages John’s preferred teaching principles of discussion and meeting the needs of individual students. John does not use online technology to support his tutorial based teaching on a regular basis. Tutorials provide John with an opportunity to practice his preferred principle of ‘question, answer and debate’. He values interaction and tries to make sure that he is ‘meeting his learners’ needs rather than providing a standardised approach’. There is a more horizontal relationship with students in the tutorial than in lectures. He encourages ‘group discussion, the sharing of experiences, sharing meaning, different insights’. He sees his role as facilitation, helping with questions, giving directions, setting up the opportunity for interaction and monitoring the timing. John brings lots of resources to share with his students. Whilst he orchestrates the tutorial there is opportunity for students to take some control over content, sequence and pace in this space. John does not believe that this sort of interaction is possible using online technology. In tutorials, official influences do not restrict the pedagogic pool such that there is a compromise to John’s preferred teaching principles he has teaching autonomy. That is, official influences have not overwhelmed his role as an agent of the pedagogic recontextualising field. In summary, as a result of official influences overwhelming John’s pedagogic autonomy, the specific instructional practices in his lecture practice are not consistent with his preferred teaching principles. In the case of tutorials, John’s specific instructional practices are consistent with his preferred teaching principles. In this pedagogic space, official influences do not overwhelm or are not inconsistent with John’s role as an agent of teacher influence. Susan Susan uses the self declared metaphor of ‘The Ripening Bud’ to represent her preferred teaching principles. She promotes a community of learners, self-managed learning and the development of the individual. Susan advocates a professional relationship between teachers and students with the teacher taking the role of a senior colleague. Her preferred relationship with students encourages ‘a sense of working with the students not at them’. Susan advocates personal responsibility for one’s own learning within facilitator-student and student-student relationships that build on the individuals need for meaning as they learn. She encourages program participants to work collaboratively. Susan teaches in the Certificate IV in Health Nursing. Official influences include a centrally endorsed curriculum that specifies program outcomes. In addition, there is a need for graduates to be registered by the Nurse Registration Board. Therefore, Susan must meet the requirements of the curriculum and a registration agency. The employing organisation supports the use of online technology with facilities and resources but does not prescribe use or method of implementation. In negotiating the need to meet the predetermined requirements of curriculum and registration of nurses whilst not compromising her preferred teaching principles Susan has separated her teaching and assessment practice.

11

Susan’s classroom teaching practice is scheduled. She aims to develop learner’s underpinning knowledge and skills with an emphasis on the development of the individual. Susan rarely uses online technology in her teaching practice. She determines the topic for each session but is prepared to modify the sequence, pace and the detail that is discussed. Whilst she may correct errors during this time, it is a space where there is little evaluation of what constitutes legitimate knowledge. This is an opportunity for students to explore issues of concern. Susan’s assessment practices fall into the two distinct categories of practical skills and underpinning knowledge. Practical skills are assessed in a simulated classroom environment. These are scheduled sessions and students are expected to meet the minimum standard for the performance of each task. The sequence of tasks is determined by the teacher, within the restraints of time, students are able to complete tasks at their own pace. The protocol for completing the task and what constitutes competent practice is determined by the teachers. Assessment of underpinning knowledge is achieved through the completion of detailed assignments that are placed online. Times are scheduled for learners to engage with assessment practices, these are self-managed. Susan uses online functionalities for research, distribution of assessment resources and email for communication. Learners are expected to self-manage the completion of text-based assessment. These are a combination of specific tasks which provide the learner minimal discretion and more open tasks that allow the learner to pursue their own interests. Learners are encouraged to co-operate in the completion of these assessments which must be completed within designated timelines. However, within that framework, students have some discretion over what topics they focus on, for how long and in what sequence. Susan has established two pedagogic spaces that are strongly insulated. Using this strategy Susan has been able to meet the regulatory requirements of curriculum and the Nurse Registration Board whilst remaining true to her preferred teaching principles. The teaching space is strongly insulated from official influences and there is congruence between preferred teaching principles and specific instructional practices. The assessment spaces aim to achieve the requirements of official influences. Although specific instructional practices in the assessment spaces are inconsistent with incongruence Susan’s preferred teaching principles this strategy enables pedagogic autonomy in Susan’s teaching space. That is, Susan has created space to support her transformative learning principles and to achieve ‘The Ripening Bud’. Summary The cases reported here show examples of variable relationships between official and pedagogic influences, preferred teaching principles and specific instructional practices. 1. In John’s lectures and Susan’s assessment practices, official influences have overwhelmed teacher’s influence to result in incongruence between preferred teaching principles and specific instructional practices.

12

2. In Johns’ tutorial practice and Lim’s English Language Studies official influences and teacher influences are not incongruent. In these cases, preferred teaching principles and specific instructional practices are consistent. 3. In Susan’s face-to-face teaching practice and Lim’s Occupational Preparatory Program official influences have not overwhelmed teacher’s influence. In Susan’s case her preferred teaching practices and specific instructional practices are consistent. In Lim’s Occupational Preparatory Program teaching her specific instructional practices are inconsistent with preferred teaching principles. In the cases of John and Susan where official influences have overwhelmed teacher’s influence in one of their teaching spaces, the teacher has been able to operationalise their preferred teaching preferences in other aspects of their teaching or assessment. By creating or using existing teaching spaces that are insulated from official influences that constrain their preferred teaching principles they have been active agents in meeting the requirements of the official influences in one pedagogic space whilst accommodating their preferred principles in another. John has accommodated the organisational requirement of a lecture-tutorial approach. Whilst not able to implement his preferred teaching principles in his lecture-based teaching John has adapted the tutorial space to achieve his preferred teaching principles. Susan has created an assessment space that allows for the accommodation of the external registration agency and a teaching space that accommodates her preferred teaching principles. In Lim’s case there is congruence between preferred and implemented teaching practice in the case of her English Second Language studies and incongruence between preferred teaching principles and specific instructional practices in her Occupational Preparatory Program teaching. This inconsistency cannot be fully explained by official influence. Lim suggests that the allocation of 20 hours of curriculum in the Occupational Preparatory Program contributes to the lack of evidence of provision of social interaction and meeting the personal needs of learners. She also suggests that the profile of learners in the Occupational Preparatory Program means that the implementation of these teaching principles is not critical. The suggestion that incongruence can be fully explained by official influences is unconvincing. Lim has a high level of emotional investment and commitment to the discipline of English Language Studies and the individuals enrolled in this program. This is not the case for the Occupational Preparatory Program and may provide some explanation for this difference. I propose that there are two competing dispositions that have influenced Lim’s Occupational Preparatory Program teaching practice. Firstly, her disposition towards implementing preferred teaching principles and secondly her disposition towards the use of technology. In this case, her desire to use technology would appear to have overwhelmed her desire to implement her preferred teaching principles. This is not the case in her English Language Studies teaching.

CONCLUSION This research shows that the shaping of vocational teacher’s pedagogic practices is a complex process. Teachers can be active agents in the implementation of organisational policy, the implementation of their preferred teaching principles and the compromise of their own preferred teaching principles. Based on Bernstein’s pedagogic device the model presented proposes a way to represent the shaping of teacher’s pedagogic practices by acknowledges the role of official and 13

teacher influences. The model reveals something of the dynamics that result in teacher’s pedagogic practices including strategies that teacher’s use in shaping teaching practice. The research reveals examples where teachers who are unable to maintain pedagogic autonomy in one element of their teaching and/or assessment practice are able to maintain pedagogic autonomy in another element of their teaching practice. This is achieved by adopting or developing pedagogic spaces that are highly insulated from official influences. The central feature of these ‘pedagogic spaces’ is that they provide a significant level of pedagogic autonomy. The concepts of values and beliefs and personal practical knowledge have been useful in informing this research. Together with Basil Bernstein’s pedagogic device these concepts provide a useful theoretical framework for the clarification of findings in the process of the research. In the absence of overwhelming official influence, teachers are active agents in determining teaching practices. This may manifest in two ways. Teachers may be active in integrating online technology in a way that is consistent with their preferred teaching principles. Alternatively, under some circumstances, teachers are active agents in compromising their own preferred teaching principles if their desire to use online technology outweighs their desire to implement those preferred practices.

REFERENCES Bernstein, B., 1971. On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. Young (ed.) Knowledge and control. New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier and Macmillan, 47-69. Bernstein, B., 1996. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Theory, research, critique London: Taylor and Francis. Bernstein, B., 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique, Rev. ed. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Bernstein, B. & Soloman, J., 1999. 'Pedagogy, identity and the construction of a theory of symbolic control': Basil Bernstein questioned by Joseph Soloman. British journal of sociology of education, 20, 265-279. Borko, H. & Putnam, R., 1995. Expanding teacher's knowledge base. A cognitive psychology perspective on professional development. In T. Guskey & M. Huberman (eds.) Professional development in education. New paradigms and practices. Colombia University: Teachers College Press, 35-66. Bullough, R.V., 1991. Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 42, 43-51. Castells, M., 1996. The information age. Economy, society and culture. Volume 1. The rise of the networked society Oxford: Blackwell. Charmaz, K., 2000. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 509536. Chin, P., 1997. Teaching and learning in teacher education. Who is carrying the ball? In J. Loughran & T. Russell (eds.) Teaching about teaching. Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: The Falmer press, 117-130.

14

Christie, F. (ed.) (1999) Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness. Linguistic and social processes, London: Continuum. Combs, A.W., 1982. A personal approach to teaching: Beliefs that make a difference Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A., 2008. Basics of qualitative research: : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Edwards, R. & Usher, R., 2000. Globalisation and pedagogy. Space, place and identity London: Routledge. Ensor, P., Year. Legitimating school knowledge: The pedagogic device and the remaking of the South African school-leaving certificate 1994-2004ed.^eds. Third International Basil Bernstein Symposium, Cambridge. Errington, E., 2001. The influence of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation in traditional university settings. In F. Lockwood & A. Gooley (eds.) Innovation in open and distance learning. Successful development of online and web-based learning. London: Kogan Page Limited, 27-37. Errington, E., 2004. The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in education and teaching international, 41, 39-47. Goldkuhl, G. & Cronholm, S., Year. Multi-grounded theory - Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theoryed.^eds. 2nd European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management, Reading, UK. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors, we live by Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry Beverley Hill, California: Sage. Marland, P., 1997. Towards more effective open and distance teaching London: Kogan Page. Marland, P., 1998. Teachers' practical theories: Implications for preservice teacher education. AsiaPacific journal of teacher education & development, 1, 15-23. Mcshane, K., Year. Academic's metaphors and beliefs about university teaching and learninged.^eds. Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane. Merriam, S., 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Merriam, S. (ed.) (2002) Qualitative research in practice. Examples for discussion and analysis, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Morais, A. & Neves, I., 2001. Pedagogic social contexts: Studies for a sociology of learning. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (eds.) Towards a sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York: Peter Lang, 185-221. Pajares, F.M., 1992. Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62, 307-332. Robertson, I., 2006. Teachers integrating online technology in TAFE. Doctor of Education. Monash University. Robertson, J., Year. Exploring difference: the metaphors that shape academic thought and practiceed.^eds. Learning for an unknown future, Christchurch, NZ: HERDSA. Rogers, E., 1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press. Singh, P., 2001. Pedagogic discourses and student resistance in Australian secondary schools. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (eds.) Towards a sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York: Peter Lang, 251-279. Soloman, J. & Tsatsaroni, A., 2001. Educational evaluation: The social production of texts and practices. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (eds.) Towards a sociology of 15

pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York: Peter Lang, 287315. Sumision, J., 2002. Becoming, being and unbecoming an early childhood educator: A phenomenological case study of teacher attrition. Teaching and teacher education, 18, 869885.

16