Binaries and beyond: A bernsteinian perspective on change in literacy education

Research Papers in Education

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 223-245

  Chen, Honglin ^a   Derewianka, Beverly ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bernstein; Hierarchical knowledge structures; Horizontal knowledge structures; Literacy education; The pedagogic device

Indexed keywords

EID: 84995553137     PISSN: 02671522     EISSN: 14701146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02671520902867226     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. American Evaluation Association. 2003. Response to U.S. Department of Education ‘Scientifically Based Evaluation Methods’ November 4.
2. Andrews, R. 2008. Ten years of strategies. Changing English 15, no. 1: 77-85.
3. Apple, M. 2004. Educational reform and the middle class. Educational Policy 18, no. 2: 395-400.
4. Apple, M. 2006. What can we learn from Texas about No Child Left Behind? Educational Policy 20, no. 3: 551-560.
5. Beard, R. 2000. Research and the national literacy strategy. Oxford Review of Education 26, nos. 3-4: 421-436.
6. Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, codes and control (Volume 1). London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
7. Bernstein, B. 1990. The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
8. Bernstein, B. 1996. Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
9. Bernstein, B. 1999. Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20, no. 2: 157-173.
10. Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman/Littlefield.
11. Bernstein, B. 2003. Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmissions V. 3. London: Routledge.
12. Bourne, J. 2000. New imaginings of reading for a new moral order: A review of the production, transmission and acquisition of a new pedagogic culture in the UK. Linguistics and Education 11, no. 1: 31-45.
13. Bourne, J. 2008. Official pedagogic discourses and the construction of learners’ identities. In Encyclopedia of language and education (Volume 3): Discourse and education, ed. M. Martin-Jones, A. M. d. Mejia, and N. H. Hornberger, 41-52. Springer Science.
14. Carter, R. 1996. Politics and knowledge about language: The LINC project. In Literacy and society, ed. R. Hasan and G. Williams, 1-21. London: Longman.
15. Caughlan, S., and R. Beach. 2007. Fissures in standards formulation: The role of neoconservative and neoliberal discourses in justifying standards development in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Education Policy Analysis Archives 15, no. 18: 1-62.
16. Chen, H., and P. Harris. 2008. Recontextualisation as a framework for understanding relationships among literacy research, policy and practice. AARE 2008 International Education Conference Brisbane, 30 November-4 December, in Brisbane, Austrailia.
17. Chen, H., and K. Cruickshank. 2009. Conceptualising the field of applied linguistics from a Bernsteinian perspective: Challenges and opportunities. In Making a difference: Challenges for applied linguistics, ed. H. Chen and K. Cruickshank, 1-20. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.
18. Christie, F. 1999. The pedagogic device and the teaching of English. In Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes, ed. F. Christie, 156-184. London: Cassell Academic.
19. Christie, F. 2006. Literacy teaching and current debates over reading. In Language & literacy: Functional approaches, ed. R. Whittaker, M. O’Donnell, and A. McCabe, 45-65. London: Continuum.
20. Christie, F., and M. Macken-Horarik. 2007. Building verticality on subject English. In Language knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, ed. F. Christie and J.R. Martin, 156-183. Continuum: London/New York.
21. DfEE. 1998. Frameworkfor teaching. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/nls_framework/.
22. Eisenhart, L., and L. Towne. 2003. Contestation and change in national policy on ‘scientifi-cally based’ education research. Educational Researcher 32, no. 7: 31-38.
23. Framing Paper: National English Curriculum. 2008. National Curriculum Board, Australia. Primary National Strategy UK. http://www.ncb.org.au/our_work/preparing_for_2009. html.
24. Freebody, P., 2005. Preface. In Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educationalpsychology research on teaching students with learning difficulties, ed. L.A. Ellis. Victoria: ACER.
25. Freebody, P., K. Maton, and J. Martin. 2008. Talk, text, and knowledge in cumulative, inte-grated learning: A response to ‘intellectual challenge’. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 31, no. 2: 188-201.
26. Gavrielatos, A., and S. Hopgood. 2008. ‘Joel Klein and the New York School Accountability Model’ Australian Policy Online, November. http://www.apo.org.au/linkboard/list.chtml?topic=Education.
27. Halliday, M.A.K. 2007. The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday (Volume 9): Language and education (Ed. J. Webster). London: Continuum.
28. Harris, P., B. McKenzie, H. Chen, L. Kervin, and P. Fitzsimmons. 2007. Investigating relationships between literacy research, policy, and practice: A critical review of related literature. ALEA/AATE Annual Conference, July, in Canberra, Austrailia.
29. Hasan, R. 2005. Language, society and consciousness: The collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan, Vol. 1. London: Equinox.
30. House of Commons Report. 2005. House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Teaching Children to Read Eighth Report of Session 2004-05 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 March.
31. Kliebard, H. 1995. The struggle for the American curriculum, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/ Kegan Paul.
32. Larson, J., and J. Marsh. 2005. Making literacy real: Theories and practices for learning and teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Liston, D., J. Whitcomb, and H. Borko. 2007. NCLB and scientifically-based research: Opportunities lost and found (No Child Left Behind) (Editorial). Journal of Teacher Education 58, no. 1: 2-11.
34. Luke, A. 2003. After the marketplace: Evidence, social science and educational research. Australian Educational Researcher 30, no. 2: 87-107.
35. Luke, A., and P. Freebody. 1999. Further notes on the four resources model in reading online. http://www.readingonline.org (accessed August 1999).
36. Luke, A., and D. Hogan. 2006. Steering educational research in national contexts: The Singapore model. In World yearbook of education: Educational research and policy, ed. D. Coulby, J. Ozga, T. Popkewitz, and T. Seddon, 170-184. London: Routledge.
37. Manzo, K. 2008a. Latest ‘reading first’ study reports limited benefits education week. Education Week 28, no. 8. http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/15/08reading.h28.html&destination=http://www.edweek. org/ew/articles/2008/10/15/08reading.h28.html&levelId=2100 (accessed October 10, 2008).
38. Manzo, K. 2008b. Federal path for reading questioned. Education Week.
39. Martin, J. 2007. Genre and field: Social processes and knowledge structures in systemic functional semiotics. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress, ed. L. Barbara and T. Berber Sardinha, 1-35. Sâo Paulo: PUCSP.
40. Martin, J.R. 2008. Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it tick. Plenary address, Disciplinarity, Knowledge and Language Symposium, University of Sydney, December 8-10, in Sydney Australia.
41. Martin, J.R, and D. Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
42. Maton, K. 2000. Recovering pedagogic discourse: A Bernsteinian approach to the sociology of educational knowledge. Linguistics & Education 11, no. 1: 79-98.
43. Maton K. 2007. Knowledge-knower structures in intellectual and educational fields. In Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, ed. F. Christie and J. Martin, 87-108. London: Continuum.
44. Maton, K., and J. Muller. 2007. A sociology for the transmission of knowledges. In Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, ed. F. Christie and J. Martin, 14-33. London: Continuum.
45. McNeil, L. 2005. Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In Leaving children behind: How ‘Texas-style' accountability fails Latino youth, ed. A. Valenzuela, 57-111. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
46. Milburn, C. 2008. Battle lines. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/battle-lines-20080804-3pnl.html (accessed September 8, 2008).
47. Moss, G. 2004. Changing practice: The National Literacy Strategy and the politics of literacy policy. Literacy (UKLA) 38, no. 3: 126-133.
48. Paris, S. 2005. Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly 40, no. 2: 184-202.
49. Pearson, D. 2004. The reading wars. Educational Policy 18: 216-252.
50. Poynor, L., and P.M. Wolfe, eds. 2005. Marketingfear in America'spublic schools: The real war on literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Pressley, M. 2003. A few things reading educators should know about instrnctional experiments. Reading Teacher 57, no. 1. http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index. asp?HREF=RT/9-03_column/index.html.
52. Proctor, M., and P. Demerath. 2008. Building the realism bridge: Shaping policy through collective research. Language Arts 86, no. 1: 42-51.
53. Rawolle, S., and B. Lingard. 2008. The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and researching education policy. Journal of Education Policy 23, no. 6: 729-741.
54. Rose, J. 2006. Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final report. Department for Education and Skills, the UK. http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/phonics/rosereview/.
55. Rose, J. 2008. The independent review of the primary curriculum: Interim report. http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk.
56. Rowe, K. 2005a. Teaching reading: The national inquiry into the teaching of reading. http:// www.dest.gov.au/nitl/report.htm.
57. Rowe, K. 2005b. Teaching reading: The national inquiry into the teaching of reading: Literature review. http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/report.htm.
58. Singh, P. 2002. Pedagogising knowledge: Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device. British Journal of Sociology of Education 23, no. 4: 571-582.
59. Snyder, I. 2008. The literacy wars. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
60. Stannard, J., and L. Huxford. 2007. The literacy game: The story of the national literacy strategy. London: Routledge.
61. Twiselton, S. 2000. Seeing the wood for the trees: The National Literacy Strategy and Initial Teacher Education; pedagogical content knowledge and the structure of subjects. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, no. 3: 391-403.
62. US Department of Education. 2008. Final Report of the evaluation of the Reading First Implementation. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/readingfirst-final/index.html.
63. Whitty, G. 2006. Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? British Educational Research Journal 32, no. 2: 159-176.
64. Wyse, D. 2001. Grammar for writing? A critical review of empirical evidence. British Journal of Educational Studies 49, no. 4: 411-427.
65. Wyse, D. 2003. The national literacy strategy: A critical review of empirical evidence. British Educational Research Journal 29, no. 6: 903-916.
66. Vladero, D. 2009. ‘Scientifically-based’ giving way to ‘development’, ‘innovation’. Education Week 28, no. 19: 1-11.