1 / 10

Comparing pedagogical arrangements for Sociology in universities of different status: A Bernsteinian analysis

Comparing pedagogical arrangements for Sociology in universities of different status: A Bernsteinian analysis. Work in progress from ‘Pedagogic Quality and Inequality in Undergraduate Degrees’: Monica McLean, Andrea Abbas, Paul Ashwin and Ourania Filippakou. Funded by:.

sylvia
Download Presentation

Comparing pedagogical arrangements for Sociology in universities of different status: A Bernsteinian analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing pedagogical arrangements for Sociology in universities of different status: A Bernsteinian analysis Work in progress from ‘Pedagogic Quality and Inequality in Undergraduate Degrees’: Monica McLean, Andrea Abbas, Paul Ashwin and Ourania Filippakou Funded by:

  2. ‘Wicked’ problem (Trowler) To what extent and how does university education (re)produce or interrupt hierarchies in society? (investigation and interpretations at macro; meso and micro level)

  3. Basil Bernstein’ theory ‘How boundaries are relayed by various pedagogic processes so as to distribute, shape, position and opposition forms of consciousness’. (2000, p.xiii) University education’s role in students’ ‘beings and doings’ .

  4. Pedagogic Rights

  5. Methodological approach (clarifying what we want to produce- Hammersley) • 4 university departments: Yaddon, Nilesborough (pre ‘92) Edderhall and Draystone (post ‘92). • Several data sets analysed separately and then in relation to each other. • Keeping ‘internal’ and ‘external’ languages separate • The concept of code: relayed by classification and framing.

  6. Documentary analysis ‘The researched’ = statistics and documents • Classification at institutional level (reputation, material conditions, self image) • Framing of curriculum and pedagogy at departmental level • Access to pedagogic rights?

  7. Classification of institutions Reputation: league table position- Yaddon (1) Nilesborough (2), Edderhall (3), Draystone (4)- strongly classified Material conditions: wealth reflects league table positions- huge differences, weakly classified Self image: ‘the student experience’ -weakly classified

  8. Classification of discipline • Departmental profiles: league table position, UCAS points, SSRs, student diversity, staff with doctorates • Presentation of discipline (handbooks and website): (tendency) implicit, about society as a whole, disciplinary knowledge v. explicit, about students’ lives, skills

  9. Framing of curriculum and pedagogy (module guides) • (Eventually) selection,organisation,sequence of content; pacing , timing, assessment, staff/student relations (regulative discourse). • Slightly different emphases on classical sociology; sociological issues and research. • Different patterns of core and optional modules • Contact hours; group size; variety/amount of assessment

  10. Concluding comments: redefining ‘quality’ • Is there unequal distribution of pedagogic rights? How? How not? • What counts as ‘just’ pedagogy for all students in terms of pedagogic rights. • Understanding the significance of nuances and inflections. • Avoiding parochialism (Morely).

More Related