Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation.

AN INTRODUCTION TO BASIL BERNSTEIN’S SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY OF PEDAGOGY Ian Robertson [email protected] August 2008

INTRODUCTION Origins of Bernstein’s Theoretical Framework Originating in the field of socio-linguistics, Basil Bernstein’s theoretical corpus was developed over a period of more than 40 years. Basil Bernstein was a central actor in developing a new sociology of education that was published in 1971 as Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (Young, 1971). This text was published in response to research of the 1950s and 1960s that had been dominated by structural-functionalism. This new sociology problematises ‘that which had hitherto been taken for granted in education’ (Whitty, 1985, p.7) and which had led to research ‘in terms of a system perspective’, where change and innovation were conceived ‘in terms of structural differentiation towards unchallenged and often implicit system goals’ (Young, 1971, p.1). Major Concepts in Bernstein’s Theoretical Framework As a result of his experience as a teacher in London schools in the 1950s Bernstein’s early research was driven by a concern for the educational failure of working-class children in Britain (Christie, 1999). This work investigated the language patterns of working-class and middle-class families (and children) and provided an alternative to the psychometric evaluations that had dominated research in this area (Edwards, 2002). He proposed ‘a distinction between ‘public’ language, associated with lower-working-class children, and ‘formal’ language, which was associated with middle-class children’ (Christie, 1999, p.3). Subsequent ‘finer formulation of the notions of different language uses led to the notion of restricted and elaborated codes’ (Christie, 1999, p.3). Bernstein suggested that schooling rewarded formal language. As a consequence middle class children had access to the language codes required to be successful at school whereas working class children did not (Christie, 1999). Moving from specific concern for educational failure to developing a larger sociological theory led to the publication of work on classification and framing (Christie, 1999) as a means to theorise pedagogic communication in terms of power and control respectively (Bernstein, 1971). Classification refers to the degree of insulation between subjects, groups, and categories. Where units are discrete and separated there is a high degree of insulation and strong classification. Where units are integrated, there is a low level of insulation and weak classification. Framing refers to the locus of control. Where teachers are firmly in

1

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. control of the content, sequence, pace and evaluation of learning there is strong framing. Where this control lies with the learner there is weak framing. In his later years, Bernstein returned to the consideration of language codes with his theorisation of horizontal and vertical discourse (Bernstein, 2000). Whilst classification and framing provide a means to analyse language codes, they do not assist in understanding how those codes are established or maintained. Addressing this shortcoming led to the third phase of Bernstein’s work, the theorisation of the pedagogic device. The concept of ‘identity’ was also proposed in Bernstein’s 1971 paper on classification and framing of educational knowledge (Bernstein & Soloman, 1999). Bernstein proposes four modalities of pedagogic identity which are constructed as a result of struggles ‘to produce and institutionalise particular identities’ (Bernstein, 2000, p.66).
Retrospective identity (RI) is characterised as ‘old conservative’ does not enter into an exchange relation with the economy. State managed resources are used to support National religious and cultural grand narratives of the past to stabilise the future. There is tight control over the discursive inputs of education but not over its outputs.
Prospective identity (PI) is characterised as neo-conservative. Like to RI, state managed resources. However, in this case they are used to selective recontextualise features of the past to defend or raise economic performance
De-centred-market (DCM) identity is characterised as neo-liberal. Like the PI there is a concern for economic performance. It results from the use of resources at the decentralised or local level. There is considerable institutional autonomy over budget, discourse, staff and courses provided that the institution can attract students, meet external performance criteria and optimise its position in relation to similar institutions. Institutional discourse is driven by outward responsiveness rather than inner dedication, Personal commitments are seen as resistance and discouraged.
De-centred-therapeutic (DCT) identity is characterised as professional. Like DCM it is also the result of resources at the decentralised or local level. Institutional autonomy is used to produce an integrated modality of knowing and a participative, co-operative modality of social relation. DCT is produced by projects internal to education, relatively independent of external market signifiers, they are positioned by complex theories of personal, social and cognitive development (Exley, 2005) that are often labeled progressive. Bernstein also proposed the idea of the totally pedagogised society (TPS), suggesting that there have been two periods of TPS. Firstly during the medieval period when religion pervaded meanings, activities and practices through the agency of the Catholic Church. He believed that the emergence of the information society and educational change in Britain in the 1980s is evidence of a second TPS (Bernstein, 2001). Bernstein also argues that the TPS is one where competency or outcomes-based approaches1 dominate the education 1

Bernstein uses the term ‘Performance Approach’ to describe competency or outcomes based education.

2

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. arena and where the boundaries between education and the economy become blurred (Sadovnic, 2004). The Application of Bernstein to Education and Technology Bernstein’s sociological theory has been applied in a range of contexts when researching policy and practice in the field of education. His theory has been applied at macro- and micro-levels. In some cases the principles that are central to the Bernstein’s work are used to inform the research in a general way. Sometimes researchers use specific concepts that are drawn from his theoretical corpus, and sometimes these are in combination. There are also examples where Bernstein’s theoretical framework is used in combination with other theories such as Activity Theory (Daniels, 2001) and the work of Bourdieu (Exley, 2001). The general body of literature that applies Basil Bernstein’s theory to pedagogic issues considers a range of social practices and issues. These include





Government policy and education Pedagogy and social diversity Curriculum reform in specific subjects area such as science, health and mathematics Pedagogic practice in specific educational programs including teacher training, adult numeracy, health and physical education, second language learning
Implementation of computers and computer technology. As useful overview of current research using Bernstein’s ideas is reflected in the papers presented at the Fifth Bernstein Symposium was held in Cardiff, Wales in July 2008. Conference papers are available and a copy of the index is provided in Appendix 1. (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/newsandevents/events/Bernstein/papers/index.html accessed 12 August 2008). The following sections of this introduction to the work of Basil Bernstein focus on classification and framing, recognition and realisation rules, and the pedagogic device (distribution, recontextualising and evaluation rules) and their application to the analysis of issues in education.

CLASSIFICATION AND FRAMING Classification In Bernstein’s (2000) terms classification relates to the level of insulation between categories. Where classification is strong, there is a high level of insulation between categories of discourse. Where classification is weak, there is weak maintenance of boundaries and insulation between discourses such that there is blurring of the boundaries. For example, the schooling system has traditionally been organised into primary, secondary and tertiary schools. These have been largely distinct organisational units with their own

3

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. cultural identity, distinct teaching approaches and separate employment arrangements. Whilst some learners and teachers may have straddled more than one sector this has been unusual. Contemporary moves towards primary, middle and senior schools can be interpreted as a weakening of the traditional strong classification between primary and secondary schooling. In Australia there has also been strong policy promotion of vocational education and training for learners in years 10, 11 and 12 in secondary schools. This represents an example of weakening of the traditionally strong classification between secondary and tertiary schooling systems. Examples of strong or weak classification of curriculum within or between programs can be identified through observation of the way that teaching is organised. In cases where there are specialist teachers for different courses there is likely to be strong classification. Teaching practices that support a strict separation of theory and practice demonstrate strong classification. For example, mathematics can be described as having strong classification. Mathematics is a discipline which is considered to have a highly developed language/grammar that one needs to learn in order to be able to effectively work within the discipline. It is a specialised discourse where development occurs in a vertical manner. That, is, certain concepts, language and skills need to be mastered before moving to the next level. In this perspective, power relations create, legitimise and reproduce boundaries such that the discipline is insulated from outside influences. In Bernstein’s terms this insulation is established and maintained as a result of power relations. In contrast, disciplines such as social studies can be described as having weak classification. That is, the boundaries (level of insulation) between social studies and other disciplines are weakly insulated. The language/grammar of social studies is not highly developed, draws from a range of other disciplines (such as economics, health etc) and is horizontal (c.f. vertical). Weak classification of disciplines is often seen in occupations where people from multiple disciplines are able to contribute. A second example of weak classification is the emergence of new disciplines that result from the convergence of two or more other disciplines. For example, mechatronics brings together the disciplines of mechanics and electronics which had previously been insulated to maintain distinctive boundaries. In Bernstein’s terms, this convergence occurs as a result of a change in power relations that previously maintained the boundaries between the two. Framing Framing refers to the locus of control over the selection, sequencing, pacing and criteria used to evaluate what counts as legitimate knowledge. In short, the principle of classification regulates the strength of boundaries and insulation between categories, the principle of framing regulates how the discourse is to be transmitted and acquired in the pedagogic context (Bernstein, 2000). Where framing is strong, the teacher has control over the selection, sequence, pace and (evaluation) criteria of the pedagogic interaction. The rules that regulate behaviour and instruction are explicit. A stereotypic view of traditional teacher-centred education can be

4

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. described as being strongly framed if the teacher controls, what is taught/learnt, in what sequence/order, the time allocated to differing parts of instruction and the legitimacy (correctness) of the learning is assessed by the teacher. Here, the locus of control for all aspects of curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation (assessment) reside with the teacher. Where framing is weak, control over the selection, sequence, pace and criteria of the pedagogic interaction are in the control of the learner. In this case, the rules that regulate behaviour and instruction are invisible or implicit to the learner (Bernstein, 2000). A stereotypic view of progressive education can be described as weakly framed. Here, the learner takes responsibility for determining what they learn (curriculum), how they learn it (pace, sequence), when they have arrived at a legitimate end to the learning (evaluation). Bernstein warns that what might appear to be weak framing may be an illusion. He describes this as ‘apparent weak framing’ which occurs when the rules that regulate behaviour and instruction are invisible or implicit to the learner (Bernstein, 2000). For example, the use of online technology for teaching and learning is often reputed to have the potential to provide learners with increased discretion over some aspects of framing. For example, learning resources can be available at any time where there is access to the Internet. There is the possibility of access at a time and place that suits the learner. That is, weak framing of site and timing. Where no deadlines are imposed and the learning can occur in a range of sequences there is weak framing of pace and sequence. However, where deadlines are imposed there is strengthening of pace and where learning occurs in a linear fashion there is strong framing of sequence. The strength of framing of evaluation (assessment) also varies with the possibility of strong and weak framing. For example, online assessment takes the form of true/false, multiple choice, and fill in the gap questions is characteristic of strong framing. In these cases, the nature of the assessment and what constitutes legitimate knowledge are predetermined. In cases where learners engage in problem or project based learning use discussion forums to complete a case study or engage in problem based learning the framing may be weakened.

Examples of the use of Classification and Framing ESSA, Sociological Studies of the Classroom is a Portuguese based group of researchers led by Ana Morais and Isabel Neves. They emphasise the sociological perspective in educational analysis and although not limited to, have a major interest in science education in primary and secondary schools. This group has been using Bernstein’s ideas as a central theoretical framework since the 1980s2. ESSA has published in numerous books and journals, and supports a doctoral student program. The group has developed a sophisticated approach to the use of classification and framing in detailed examinations of education reform in Portugal (see for example, Morais, 2002; Neves & Morais, 2001).

2

http://essa.fc.ul.pt accessed 11 August 2008.

5

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. Central to ESSAs approach is a detailed coding of classification and framing using a fourpoint scale. An example of the categorisation of framing of evaluation (assessment) is found in Table 1. It can be observed that as the locus of control for what constitutes a legitimate (correct) response moves towards the teacher, the level of framing becomes stronger. Alternatively, as the teacher takes less responsibility for evaluating the correctness of the response, framing becomes weaker. This approach is also used to ‘code’ empirical data such as observations, transcripts of interview and documents in terms of the strength of framing of the selection of content, sequence of learning and pace of learning. IN addition, teacher-student and student-student relationships are coded in terms of classification (power relations). STRENGTH OF FRAMING Strong framing (F++) Moderately strong framing (F+) Moderately weak framing (F-) Weak framing (F--)

DESCRIPTOR The teacher systematically points out what is correct/incorrect in a clear and detailed way. The teacher points out, in general, what is correct/incorrect in a generic way. The teacher points out what is incorrect but does not correct the error. The teacher accepts the learner’s production, questions are only intended to clarify the meaning of those productions

Table 1: Framing of evaluation (assessment). Modified from Morais and Neves (2001, p.191, Table 8.1)

This approach provides an external language of description that moves beyond subjective assessments. In this way, a detailed examination of the power and control relationships associated with curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation can be documented in a way that avoids more ‘common’ and ‘commonsense’ language such as online learning, flexible learning, e-learning and constructivism where understandings of meaning vary from person to person. Robertson (2006) used a similar but less sophisticated approach in investigating teachers’ implementation of online learning in their practice (Table 2). He found that using this framework enabled an analysis of teacher’s intentions and practices based on a sentence-by-sentence analysis of transcripts of interviews. This approach provided a useful language that moved beyond the descriptive but left little scope for the deeper interpretive analysis. He concluded that the approach is limited in that it reveals the nature of the discourse but not how the discourse is developed (Robertson, 2006).

6

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation.

STRENGTH OF FRAMING Strong framing (F++)

DESCRIPTOR

Teacher control without consultation with the learners. The teacher determines how learning will occur in terms of the selection of content, communication mode, site, pacing, sequencing and evaluation criteria. The nature of the relationships between teacherlearner, learner-learner and the rules for engagement are explicit and determined by the teacher. Moderately strong Teacher control following consultation with the learners. The teacher framing (F+) ultimately determines how learning will occur and the nature of the relationships. The rules for engagement are known to all. Moderately weak Learner control within defined boundaries following consultation framing (F-) with the teacher. The learner is able to select how learning will occur and the nature of the relationships. The rules for engagement within boundaries that are defined by the teacher are known to all. Weak framing Learner control without consultation with the teacher. The learner is (F--) able to select how learning will occur, and, the nature of the relationships. The rules for engagement are implicit there is no requirement to accept guidance from the teacher. Table 2: Four point scale of framing. Derived from Morais and Neves (2001)

RECOGNITION AND REALISATION RULES Having developed a way to describe how pedagogic modalities are regulated (classification and framing) Bernstein then sought to describe how the mode of acquisition. That is, the describe the ‘link between the mode of transmission and the process of acquisition’ (Bernstein, 2000, p.16). This is achieved through recognition and realisation rules. Recognition rules allow an individual to ‘read’ the context in a way that enables the development of meaning. That is, if a person has developed the required recognition rules for a particular context then they will be able to develop legitimate understandings. However, recognition rules alone do not allow ‘appropriate realisations to be put together. The realisation rule determines how we put meaning together and how we make them public. The realisation rule is necessary to produce the legitimate text. For example, you may have experienced a situation where you think to yourself ‘yes, I know what that means’ but when asked to explain your understanding you are unable to do so. In this case, you have developed recognition rules but not realisation rules. Now let’s propose that although you are unable to express your understanding in an acceptable way you are able to answer questions by giving answers that are appropriate to the context. In addition to recognition rules you have now developed ‘passive realisation’. That is, you are still unable to make meaning public in an appropriate way. If you later become capable of

7

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. expressing meaning in an appropriate way without prompts then you have developed ‘active realisation’. In summary
Recognition rules allow you to understand meaning in an appropriate way.
Passive realisation allows you to answer questions in an appropriate way but not make your knowledge public without prompting.
Active realisation allows you to make your knowledge public in an appropriate way and without prompting. However, as has been observed, ‘for text production to be accomplished, subjects must also possess socio-affective disposition specific to the context, that is, they must have the appropriate aspirations, motivations and values’ (Morais & Neves, 2001, p.198) as represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Source Morais and Neves (2001, p.198)

The ideas of recognition and realisation rules have been used in examination learning in primary school (Morais & Neves, 2001) and in teacher training programs (Morais, 2004). These ideas have also been used extensively to underpin socio-linguistic analysis (Christie, 1999).

PEDAGOGIC DEVICE Classification and framing provide a language to describe the means through which particular pedagogic modalities are regulated. Recognition and realisation rules provide a way to think about the context specific nature of meaning acquisition. Through the development of the pedagogic device, Bernstein moved his attention from describing the nature of pedagogic discourse and its acquisition to an examination of how this discourse is

8

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. established and maintained. The pedagogic device enables and legitimises ‘the potential discourse that is available to be pedagogised’ (Bernstein, 2000, p.27). 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, 2000). Through distribution rules, recontextualisation rules and evaluation rules those who control the pedagogic device have the capacity to control what counts as legitimate discourse. 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’ (classification) and ‘how’ (framing) 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 largely achieved through assessment processes. Recontextualisation is influenced by two recontextualising 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 & Tsatsaroni, 2001). The PRF is represented in the espoused pedagogic 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. Given that the pedagogic device is directly concerned with power relations it is not unsurprising that the pedagogic device has been used as a framework to examine situations of political tension and changes in power relations. For example, in South Africa, the pedagogic device has been used to investigate contestation over the school-leaving certificate in the post-1994 period (Ensor, 2004) and the production of curriculum for teacher education (Parker, 2004).

9

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. As an example, Robertson (2006, 2008) uses Bernstein’s pedagogic device as the basis to develop a model that represents the dynamics that shape vocational education teachers practice when they integrate online technology (see Figure 2). The outer sphere of the model represents the ORF. The ORF is dominated by the state and legitimises a pool of teaching approaches that are officially sanctioned. Official influences are identified as: national/state, regional/local and organisational policy; curriculum; external agencies; and, endorsed software. The inner sphere represents the influence of teachers as part of the PRF. With the exception of ‘radical teachers’ who ignore official policy, teachers are able to draw their specific instructional practices from a pool of legitimised pedagogic possibilities. Within the field of pedagogic influences, teachers preferred teaching principles are informed by deep-seated notions of what constitutes good teaching (Errington, 2004; Marland, 1998). Mediated through a lens of disposition teachers adopt specific instructional practices from the legitimised pedagogic pool. This is achieved through variation in the e-learning functionalities that are adopted, variation in their application to teaching and/or assessment practices, and variation in the level of integration into existing practice. Based on feedback from the teacher’s experience with the use of e-learning technology the teacher’s level of disposition towards its use is maintained, increased or decreased. These experiences contribute to future use of technology within practice (Robertson, 2006).

Figure 2: The dynamics of official and teacher influences (Source: Robertson, 2006, p.177)

10

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. The broken line between the outer and inner spheres and the curved arrows represent the dynamic nature of the relationship between official and teacher influences. Teacher’s pedagogic influences operate against a background of official influences and a struggle for control of teacher’s pedagogic practices occurs at this interface.

Contribution and Criticisms of Bernstein’s Theoretical Framework Bernstein’s work has been the subject of criticisms that his early research on working-class and middle-class language patterns of children led to accusations that he supported verbal deficit theories, an assertion that he vigorously rejected (Edwards, 2002). His work is described as abstract and inaccessible, and there are concerns that he presents a set of dichotomies that do not represent complex realities. A more recent general concern about the assumptions that underpinned the ‘new sociology of education’ has been raised by Bernstein’s colleague Michael Young. He asserts that as a radical departure from the existing ‘political arithmetic tradition of policy-oriented educational research [and] at least in principle [taking] a politically emancipatory role [the] new sociology of education [made] critical assumptions about the roles of power and control’ (Young, 2008, p.6). As a consequence, this ‘new sociology’ ‘took on many of the characteristics that Williams identified with muck-raking journalism rather than with social science. It knew the truth – the link between power and knowledge – and set out to show how the truth manifested itself in the school curriculum’ (Young, 2008, p.199). Whilst recognising the massive contribution that Bernstein made to sociology, Young posits a further criticism that Bernstein’s work adopts a position where it ‘remain[s] trapped in the belief that the natural sciences remain the only model for objective knowledge and knowledge growth’ (Young, 2008, p.200). He argues that there is a need for the sociology of education to adopt a more ‘realist’ approach that draws on both scientific and postmodern proposals. An alternative view is that Bernstein’s notion of analysis as a development of languages of description Establishes a dynamic between theory, empirical research and practice, and fosters an openness and transparency in presentation of the analysis of data that facilitates both induction into the practices of analysis and critical engagement with processes and products of research. It also accommodates a wide range of forms of research and allows for the integration of diverse methods, forms of data and modes of analysis, including the integration of qualitative and quantitative research. (Brown, 2006, p.144)

11

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation.

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 (pp. 47-69). London: Collier and Macmillan. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Bernstein, B. (2001). From pedagogies to knowledges. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 363-368). New York: Peter Lang. 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(2), 265-279. Brown, A. (2006). Languages of description and the education of researchers. In R. Moore, M. Arnot, J. Beck & H. Daniels (Eds.), Knowledge, power and educational reform. Applying the sociology of Basil Bernstein (pp. 129-145). London: Routledge. Christie, F. (Ed.). (1999). Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness. Linguistic and social processes. London: Continuum. Daniels, H. (2001). Bernstein and activity theory. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 99-111). New York: Peter Lang. Edwards, T. (2002). A remarkable sociological imagination. British journal of sociology of education, 23(4), 528-535. Ensor, P. (2004, 15-18 July). Legitimating school knowledge: The pedagogic device and the remaking of the South African school-leaving certificate 1994-2004. Paper presented at the Third International Basil Bernstein Symposium, Cambridge. 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(1), 39-47. Exley, B. (2001). Teachers' professional knowledge: Tensions within accounts of offshore instruction. In P. Singh & E. McWilliam (Eds.), Designing educational research: Theories, methods and practices (pp. 31-43). Flaxton (Qld): Post Pressed. Exley, B. (2005). Teachers' professional knowledge bases for offshore education: Two cases of western teachers working in Indonesia. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Marland, P. (1998). Teachers' practical theories: Implications for preservice teacher education. Asia-Pacific journal of teacher education & development, 1(2), 15-23. Morais, A. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British journal of sociology of education, 23(4), 559-569. Morais, A. (2004, 15-18 July). Teachers as creators of social contexts for scientific learning: Discussing new approaches for teacher education. Paper presented at the Third International Basil Bernstein Symposium, Cambridge. 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

12

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 185221). New York: Peter Lang. Neves, I., & Morais, A. (2001). Texts and contexts in educational systems: Studies of recontextualising spaces. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 223-245). New York: Peter Lang. Parker, D. (2004, 15-18 July). Navigating the production of curricula for initial mathematics teacher education in South Africa: Pedagogic identities, orientations to meaning and the specialisation of consciousness. Paper presented at the Third International Basil Bernstein Symposium, Cambridge. Robertson, I. (2006). Teachers integrating online technology in TAFE. Unpublished Doctor of Education, Monash University, Melbourne. Sadovnic, A. R. (2004, 15-18 July). Towards a sociology of educational change: An application of Bernstein to the U.S. No Child Left Behind. Paper presented at the Third International Basil Bernstein Symposium, Cambridge. 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 pedagogy. The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 287315). New York: Peter Lang. Whitty, G. (1985). Sociology and school knowledge. Curriculum theory, research and politics. London: Methuen. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in. From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge. Young, M. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control. New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier and Macmillan.

13

Robertson, I. (2008). Draft Only. NOT for circulation. Appendix 1: Symposium Papers, The Fifth Basil Bernstein Symposium, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, 9 July – 12 July 2008 Vanda Alves and Ana M. Morais - Curriculum and Pedagogic Practices Brian D. Barrett - No Child Left Behind and official pedagogic discourse: The perceptions of veteran and early career teachers on the ‘assault on the professions’ and the restructuring of professional identities in the United States Heidi Bolton - Comparing pedagogy linked to success in art and science: usefulness of Bernstein’s theory of pedagogy, and a question James Cambridge - Curriculum and school organization: inquiry with reference to the International Baccalaureate Lucila Carvalho and Andy Dong - Sociology of education and the design field: Operationalising the theory Laura Czerniewicz - The field of educational technology through a Bernsteinian lens Harry Daniels - Institutions as historical products: analyzing communicative action as it brings about change Arturo Escandón - Bernstein’s Pedagogic Codes and the Issue of Control in Communicative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) John Evans, Brian Davies, Emma Rich - Bernstein, Body Pedagogies and the Corporeal Device Jaamia Galant - The production and reproduction of academic practices in universities: a proposal for research Sílvia Ferreira, Ana M. Morais and Isabel P. Neves - Science curricula design: Analysis of authors’ ideological and pedagogical principles Jeanne Gamble and Ursula Hoadley - Positioning the regulative Guðrún Geirsdóttir - Academics as creators of imaginary subjects on academics’ ideas of their disciplinary curriculum decision–making Shaheeda Jaffer - Educational technology pedagogy: a looseness of fit between learning theories and pedagogy Claudia Lapping - ‘Psychic defenses’ and ‘classificatory principles’: the development of a psychosocial methodology for investigating processes of production of knowledge Karl Maton - Grammars of Sociology: How to build knowledge or win friends and influence people Johan Muller - Recognition and standing in the disciplines John Nyambe - Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse: A framework for understanding how teacher educators in a Namibian college of education interpret and practice learner-centred pedagogy Sally Power, Geoff Whitty - A Bernsteinian Analysis of Compensatory Education Ian Robertson - Exploring the dynamics that Shape Teacher’s E-Learning Practices: An Application of Basil Bernstein’s Pedagogic Device Antigoni Sarakinioti, Anna Tsatsaroni, George Stamelos - European Education Policy and Higher Education Curricular Change: the case of Greek Education Departments Parlo Singh - The Translation Device Suellen Shay - Evaluative rules for the assessment of complex performances in Humanities: Workin-progress on selected disciplinary cases Jo-Anne Vorster - An analysis of curriculum development processes in a Journalism and Media Studies Department at a South African University Leesa Wheelahan - An analysis of the structure of curriculum in vocational qualifications in Australian tertiary education: how does it mediate access to knowledge?

14