Bernstein: Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity

Purpose: To draw on the work of Bernstein (2000) in relation to aspects of Power & Control, Classification & Framing, Recognition & Realisation Rules, Context, & Social Division of Labour.

References: 5, 27, 65

Bernstein (1996) distinguishes the concept of power ¾ as establishing legitimate boundaries between forms of interaction ¾ from the concept of control ¾ as establishing legitimate boundaries within forms of interaction. In his interpretation the term classification is then used to examine the relations of power, which he claims are arbitrary, between categories ¾ be they agencies, agents, discourses, or practices ¾ which construct the nature of the social space in the form of stratifications, distributions, and locations. The strength of a power relation is related to the degree of insulation from less specialised forms of knowledge, and is indicated by uniqueness of discourse, identity, and voice, together with specialised rules. (FitzSimons, 2002, p. 109)

With respect to power, classification, recognition rules: What is the strength of classification?

1. How strong are the boundaries between the discipline of [pure] mathematics and other disciplines [applications; trans-disciplinary contexts]?

Is the main focus on:

1. the discipline of mathematics itself?
2. using applications to illustrate potential uses of theoretical mathematics and statistics and to motivate students?
3. the workplace [and life generally] with the theoretical mathematics/statistics chosen because of its immediate or potential applicability?
4. the vocation with mathematics/numeracy included as a mandatory generic skill?
5. the learner achieving a qualification through being positioned or classified in relation to others?

2. Is the focus on the individual learner or the mathematics per se?

To what degree is the focus on:

1. the development of the individual?
2. the gatekeeping role of mathematics? [i.e., distribution of various forms of capital accumulation — social, cultural, economic, and symbolic]
3. cultural development? [e.g., ethnomathematics, workplace mathematics]. Whose culture?
4. the political empowerment of individuals/social groups? [i.e., critical citizenship]

3. Who decides the Message? [i.e., what is to be recognised]
1. Government? [via national/state accredited curriculum/learning outcomes]
2. Employer groups? [as independent bodies — e.g. industry training advisory bodies; and/or via influence over government; and/or via entry testing or setting mandatory mathematics qualifications]
3. The local institution? [e.g., university mathematics faculty, vocational departments, other]
4. Individual teachers or groups of teachers?
5. Learners?
6. Some combination of the above? Which?

4. Who decides the Voice? [i.e., the limits on what could be said in context if the learner’s identity is recognised as being legitimate]

1. Can learners recognise their own experiences in the texts? [written, graphical, verbal, etc., via examples, tasks, genre]
2. How are the learning spaces organised? [e.g., use of images, settings, etc.]
3. What is the distribution of tasks? [i.e., division of labour] What is the learner’s role?

5. Framing relations regulate the acquisition of this ‘voice’ and create the ‘message’ (i.e., what is made manifest, what can be realised. With respect to control, framing, realisation rules: What is the strength of framing?

With reference to the explicit pedagogy and a visible product from the learner, to what degree is the teacher/designer in control of:

1. selection of content?
2. sequencing of content?
3. pacing of work?
4. criteria for evaluation?
5. social control?

6. With reference to the evaluation of learners, where labels may be applied, are the learners judged as to whether they are:
1. conscientious, attentive, industrious, careful, and/or receptive?
2. creative, interactive, individual, autonomous, and/or agentic?

7. What kind of learning environment is there:
1. a competitive environment?
2. an environment where acquirer has apparent control?
3. a collaborative environment?

8. In relation to the pedagogy:
1. are the categories of space and time explicit and well marked?
2. is the evaluation orientation towards absences in the learner’s product, with distribution of blame?
3. in relation to the pedagogic text, is the learner positioned in the present or with an orientation to the future?
4. are the learner’s texts able to challenge the classification and framing already in place?
5. what controls are there on communication external to the discipline of mathematics entering the pedagogic practice?

9. What, if any, are the interactions between institutional pedagogies [i.e., official, formal, hierarchical] and segmental pedagogies [i.e., generally face-to-face, informal, unrelated — as found in the workplace or community] ?