Analysing classroom observational data

This data was analysed after all the interviews with teachers had been analysed, to enable a comparison between the teachers‘ opinions and their practice. The analysis involved reading all the lesson transcriptions for each teacher to develop an initial impression of how individual teachers taught geography. I then performed a content analysis of each of the 37 lessons, focusing on the content and lesson activities, using analytical tools developed from Bernstein‘s theoretical concepts of classification and framing.

For understanding how the curriculum change process is playing out at the micro- level of classroom practice, Bernstein (1996; 2000), writing from the perspective of critical theory, proposes a framework that can illuminate issues of power and control between discourses and curriculum agents. In the section that follows, I describe this framework.

5.6.3.1 Analytical framework

Bernstein (1996, 2000) proposes a theoretical framework that can be used to analyse curriculum change at the level of curriculum documents and classroom practice. This framework consists of the concepts of framing and classification, which between them constitute a language for describing issues of power and control among discourses (EE and geography) and agents. These concepts enabled the study to reveal the extent to which EE is integrated into school geography, and expose the control relations that characterise teachers‘ pedagogic practices. This helped to produce an understanding of whether the LEESP transformational vision was being realised at the level of the classroom.

Classification

traditional geography knowledge fields, and relations between EE and geography. In Bernstein‘s terms, relations between EE and geography represent external classification, while relations within knowledge fields in the subject would be an example of internal classification. Where classification is strong (C+), contents are well separated; weak classification (C-) arises when categories are brought together (Bernstein, 1996). Within this framework, a curriculum characterised by strong classification is called by Bernstein the ―collection code‖, and one with weak classification the ―integration code‖ (ibid., p.25). Thus classification was used, in this study, to develop analytical tools to explore the extent to which school geography is related to EE and the everyday knowledge of the learners, at both the levels of prescription and classroom practice. Weak classification would mean a high degree of interrelationship between EE and school geography content.

Bernstein is also interested in the classification of agents, for example, the boundaries between curriculum developers and teachers, or between teachers and learners. This type of classification would enable an analysis of issues of power relations between geography teachers and learners in a pedagogic situation. The LEESP intervention adopts a new progressivism, which requires open relationships where teachers and learners work in mutual inquiry (Doll, 1993). The extent to which the geography curriculum allows teachers and learners to make independent contextualised curriculum decisions, and the extent to which teachers create a context for dialogue and interaction among learners themselves in exploring environmental issues would represent the extent of change in the pedagogy of geography.

Framing

Whereas the principle of classification is about power relations between categories, the principle of framing establishes control relations between categories. It refers to control over the selection of knowledge, its sequencing, pacing and evaluation criteria. It also refers to control over the social relations which make knowledge transmission possible (Bernstein, 1996, p. 26). Bernstein indicates that where framing is strong, the transmitter (teacher) has explicit control in pedagogic practice, and conversely where framing is weak the acquirer (learner) has apparent control. He associates strong framing (F+) with didactic teaching methods, and weak framing (F-) with progressive pedagogy. The concept of framing was therefore used in this study

as an analytical tool with a coding system for illuminating control relations associated with the ways in which EE curriculum change processes have shaped or are shaping school geography pedagogy (see Table 11.3).

As will be shown in Table 11.3, the coding system involved a four-point scale: F+ for strong framing, F++ for very strong framing, and F- and F-- for weak framing and very weak framing respectively. After Bertram (2008), the approach I used to code lesson statements was both qualitative and quantitative, in that I interpreted lesson statements and incidents and made qualitative decisions about how they should be coded in terms of the framing scale. I then counted the number of statements in each analytical category and decided how the entire lesson should therefore be coded. For example, if there were more statements coded F++ in the first category as shown in Table 11.3, I considered such a lesson to be strongly framed (dominated by the teacher) with respect to selection of content. This coding system enabled me to develop a clear picture of the dominant pedagogy in the geography classrooms of the schools under investigation. I then compared this with the instructional theory underpinning environmental education. I used the same approach for coding the lessons according to the classification scale to determine the level of knowledge integration within the geography content (see Table 11.3).

Associated with the principles of classification and framing are recognition rules,

realisation rules and evaluative rules. Recognition rules give agents the ability to

recognise and understand the context in which they are operating (for example, classroom culture as envisaged by LEESP); realisation rules refer to the ability of agents to produce a legitimate text (Bernstein, 2000, pp.17-18). This text could be what is expected of the learner in classroom teaching and learning contexts. Evaluative rules give an understanding of the criteria to be attained in pedagogic practice (Bernstein, 2000, p.28). According to Bernstein if teachers or learners do not possess such rules governing power and control structures within a pedagogic situation, the intended curriculum change may not be realised.

The study drew on the approaches of other Bernsteinian researchers who conducted studies in different cultural and educational contexts (Morais, 2002; Singh 2002;

To characterise the teachers‘ pedagogic practices, I developed an analytical instrument similar to those used by Morais (2002), Taylor et al. (2003), Hoadley (2007) and Bertram, (2008). This tool allowed me to categorise the teachers‘ behaviour in terms of the dimensions of framing and classification. Relevant syllabus statements and the observed lessons were coded according to classification and framing scales (Bernstein, 2000). I then interpreted this data in terms of the general pedagogic principles underpinning environmental education as contained in the

Reference Note for Environmental Education in Lesotho and relevant international

literature on EE.