Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Classification And Framing' keyword pg.1 of 1
22 JUNE 2012

pedagogic discourse and practice: strong and weak classification

"The concept of classification is at the heart of Bernstein's theory of pedagogic discourse and practice. Classification refers to 'the degree of boundary maintenance between contents' (Bernstein 1973a, p. 205; 1973b, p. 88) and is concerned with the insulation or boundaries between curricular categories (areas of knowledge and subjects). Strong classification refers to a curriculum that is highly differentiated and separated into traditional subjects; weak classification refers to a curriculum that is integrated and in which the boundaries between subjects are fragile."

(Alan R. Sadovnik, 2001)

Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXXI, no. 4, December 2001, p. 687–703. UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2001

TAGS

Alan Sadovnik • areas of knowledge and subjects • Basil Bernsteinboundaries • boundaries between curricular categories • boundaries between subjects are fragile • boundary maintenance • classification and framing • classification and framing rules • code theory • collection codes • communication codes • control • curricular categories • curricular change • curriculumcurriculum development • degree of boundary maintenance between contents • disciplinary model • educational practices • educational transmission • Emile Durkheimfreedom • highly differentiated • inclusive education • insulation • integrated • integrated curriculum • integrated curriculum codes • invisible • legitimate message • mechanical solidaritymodern societyorganic solidarityorganisation of knowledgepedagogic discoursepedagogic practicepedagogic practicespedagogyprofanerules of communicationsacredschooling • separated • social classstrong classification • strong framing • strongly classified curriculum • theory of pedagogic discourse and practice • traditional society • traditional subjects • transmission of knowledgeUNESCOweak classification • weak framing • weakly classified curriculum

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
22 MAY 2011

Universities provide access to communities of scholars and testimony for a student's experience among these communities

"Central to higher education is the way universities provide access to communities of scholars and testimony for a student's experience among these communities. Consequently, universities should explore resources for bringing people together, not, as some interpretations of 'distance education' suggest, for reinforcing their isolation."

(John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, 1995, p.4)

1). Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1996). The University in the Digital Age. Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). London: 1–4.

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
22 MAY 2011

Disciplinary Identities: Professional Writing, Rhetorical Studies, and Rethinking 'English'

"In his concept of 'disciplinary boundary–work,' sociologist Thomas Gieryn offers a useful lens through which to examine the controversies that arose within our department (see also David Russell's discussion of boundary work in the composition/literature split). According to Gieryn, a discipline's representatives strategically shape its boundaries by means of discourse: they articulate the discipline's mission in a certain way, they define a set of characteristic problems to coincide with the discipline's methodologies, they articulate collective values, and they engage in other practices to widen the discipline's scope and strengthen its resources. In Gieryn's approach, the epistemological, ontological, and practical relationship between a discipline and the surrounding culture is interpreted according to a cartographic metaphor. Gieryn employs this familiar metaphor to explain that a discipline relates to other disciplines, and to larger systems of knowledge and activity, in the same manner as a geographic territory relates to neighboring territories and to the larger land mass that encloses it. Furthermore, the relationships between neighboring territories strongly influence the overall health, power, and legitimacy of the involved territories. As such, it is helpful to know how the boundaries between territories are formulated and how they share resources.

What's up for grabs in boundary conflicts is not just traditional 'resources' (such as faculty lines, research funds, courses, and students), but also control over representations of the discipline's central problems, concepts, and methods – that is, the 'rhetorical resources' that disciplines create and maintain in order to solidify their boundaries. Contests over the department's undergraduate curriculum have the potential to shape not only very practical matters like hiring priorities and new course creation, but also the distribution of rhetorical resources – namely, formulations of 'English' as a discipline. One of the primary rhetorical resources in this case is control over the names assigned to different programmatic elements – concentrations, degrees, and so on – of the department."

(Brent Henze, Wendy Sharer and Janice Tovey, 2010, p.70)

Russell, David R. 'Institutionalizing English: Rhetoric on the Boundaries.' Disciplining English: Alternative Histories, Critical Perspectives. Ed. David R. Shumway and Craig Dionne. Albany, NY: SUNY P, 2002. 39–58.

1). Henze, B., W. Sharer, et al. (2010). Disciplinary Identities: Professional Writing, Rhetorical Studies, and Rethinking 'English'. Design Discourse Composing and Revising Programs in Professional and Technical Writing. D. Franke, A. Reid and A. DiRenzo. Fort Collins, Colorado, The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press, LLC. 32.

TAGS

academic disciplinesboundaries • boundaries between territories • boundary conflicts • boundary work • cartographic metaphor • characteristic problems • classification and framingcollective valuescontextually specific practices • contextually specific texts • control over representations • David Russell • disciplinary boundariesdisciplinary classification • disciplinary discourse • disciplinary identities • disciplinary protectionism • disciplinary resources • disciplinary structures • distributing principles • distribution of rhetorical resources • epistemology • geographic territory • hiring priorities • knowledge territorialisationlegitimate scholarly practicesmethodologiesontology • pedagogic codes • pedagogic recontextualising field • professional writing • research funds • rhetorical resources • rhetorical studies • Thomas Gieryn • undergraduate curriculum

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
10 APRIL 2011

Classification and framing in pedagogic discourse and practice

"The concept of classification is at the heart of Bernstein's theory of pedagogic discourse and practice. Classification refers to 'the degree of boundary maintenance between contents' (Bernstein 1973a, p. 205; 1973b, p. 88) and is concerned with the insulation or boundaries between curricular categories (areas of knowledge and subjects). Strong classification refers to a curriculum that is highly differentiated and separated into traditional subjects; weak classification refers to a curriculum that is integrated and in which the boundaries between subjects are fragile.

Using the concept of classification, Bernstein outlined two types of curriculum codes: collection and integrated codes. The first refers to a strongly classified curriculum; the latter, to a weakly classified curriculum. In keeping with his Durkheimian project, Bernstein analyzed the way in which the shift from collection to integrated curriculum codes represents the evolution from mechanical to organic solidarity (or from traditional to modern society), with curricular change marking the movement from the sacred to the profane.

Whereas classification is concerned with the organization of knowledge into curriculum, framing is related to the transmission of knowledge through pedagogic practices. Framing refers to the location of control over the rules of communication and, according to Bernstein (1990), 'if classification regulates the voice of a category then framing regulates the form of its legitimate message' (p. 100). Furthermore, 'frame refers to the degree of control teacher and pupil possess over the selection, organization, pacing and timing of the knowledge transmitted and received in the pedagogical relationship' (1973b, p. 88). Therefore, strong framing refers to a limited degree of options between teacher and students; weak framing implies more freedom.

Bernstein developed this approach into a systematic analysis of pedagogic discourse and practices. First, he outlined a theory of pedagogic rules that examined the 'intrinsic features which constitute and distinguish the specialized form of communication realized by the pedagogic discourse of education' (Bernstein, 1990, p. 165). Second, he related his theory of pedagogic discourse to a social–class base and applied it to the ongoing development of different educational practices (Bernstein, 1990, p. 63–93).

The concept of code was central to Bernstein's sociology. From the outset of its use in his work on language (restricted and elaborated codes), code refers to a 'regulative principle which underlies various message systems, especially curriculum and pedagogy' (Atkinson, 1985, p. 136). Curriculum and pedagogy are considered message systems, and with a third system, evaluation, they constitute the structure and processes of school knowledge, transmission and practice. As Bernstein (1973b) noted: 'Curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, pedagogy defines what counts as valid transmission of knowledge, and evaluation defines what counts as a valid realization of the knowledge on the part of the taught' (p. 85). Thus, his theory of education must be understood in terms of the concepts of classification, framing and evaluation, and their relationship to the structural aspects of his sociological project.

Following this earlier work on curriculum and pedagogic practice was a detailed analysis of pedagogic discourse that presented a complex analysis of the recontextualization of knowledge through the pedagogic device (see Bernstein, 1990). Bernstein's work on pedagogic discourse was concerned with the production, distribution and reproduction of official knowledge and how this knowledge is related to structurally determined power relations. What is critical is that Bernstein was concerned with more than the description of the production and transmission of knowledge; he was concerned with its consequences for different groups.

Bernstein's analysis of pedagogic practice looked at the process and content of what occurs inside schools. His theory of pedagogic practice examined a series of rules considered both how these rules affect the content to be transmitted and, perhaps more important, how they 'act selectively on those who can successfully acquire it.' From an analysis of these rules, Bernstein examined 'the social class assumptions and consequences of forms of pedagogic practice' (Bernstein, 1990, p. 63). Finally, he applied this theory to conservative/traditional versus progressive/child centred) practices. He differentiated between a pedagogic practice that is dependent on the economic market–that emphasizes vocational education–and another that is independent and autonomous of the market–that is legitimated by the autonomy of knowledge. Bernstein concluded that both, despite their claims to the contrary, would not eliminate the reproduction of class inequalities. Through a consideration of the inner workings of the types of educational practice, Bernstein contributed to a greater understanding of how schools reproduce what they are ideologically committed to eradicating–social–class advantages in schooling and society.

Bernstein's analysis of the social–class assumptions of pedagogic discourse and practice is the foundation for linking microeducational processes to the macrosociological levels of social structure and class and power relations. His thesis was that there are significant differences in the social–class assumptions of visible and invisible pedagogy and despite these differences there may indeed be similar outcomes, especially in the reproduction of power and symbolic control. Thus, from his early work on code theory to the more recent works in Class, codes and control, volumes 4 and 5 on pedagogic discourse, (1990, p. 165–218) and on pedagogic practices (1990; 1996), Bernstein's project sought to link microprocesses (language, transmission, and pedagogy) to macroforms–to how cultural and educational codes and the content and process of education are related to social class and power relations."

(Alan R. Sadovnik, 2001)

Prospects: English [2] French [3] Spainish [4] the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXXI, no. 4, December 2001, p. 687–703. UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2001

1

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
13 JUNE 2007

The mystery of discourse is not order, but disorder, incoherence

"When children fail at school, drop out, repeat, they are likely to be positioned in a factual world tied to simple operations, where knowledge is impermeable. The successful have access to the general principle, and some of these – a small number who are going to produce the discourse – will become aware that the mystery of discourse is not order, but disorder, incoherence, the possibility of the unthinkable. But the long socialisation into pedagogic code can remove the danger of the unthinkable, and of alternative realities."
(Basil Bernstein 2000, p.11)

Bernstein, Basil. (2000). 'Pedagogy Symbolic Control and Identity, Theory Research Critique'. Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

1

TAGS

abstract thinkingaccessagencyBasil Bernsteinclassification and framingcomplexitydiscoursedisorderemancipationempowermentgeneral principlehierarchyincoherenceknowledge • literal interpretation • objectivist view of knowledgeorderpedagogic codepedagogypowerrulesschool • socio-constructivist perspective • truthuncertaintyunderstanding
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.