Educational Codes

In his On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge, Basil Bernstein (1975) applies Bourdieu’s field theory to education and analyses the relation between the field of education and the field of power. The reason why I refer to his work here is that although the main focus of his work is on the English field of education, Bernstein’s principle of educational codes reveals the basic assumptions of each position of drama in relation to the wider field of education and reminds us that there is the inseparable relation between the two fields: that is, the field of drama in schools reflects the logic of the field of education.

Bernstein argues that it is the field of power that defines the educational knowledge, which he describes as ‘a major regulator of the structure of experience’ (p.85), and which is realised through such three message systems as ‘curriculum’,

‘pedagogy’ and ‘evaluation’ (ibid).27 He writes:

How a society selects, classifies, distributes, transmits and evaluates the educational knowledge it considers to be public, reflects both the distribution of power and the principles of social control. (ibid)

Bernstein then introduces the principles of ‘educational knowledge code’, the ‘underlying principles which shape curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation’ (ibid). This is based on his hypothesis that different principles, which different positions in the field of power support, offer different types of curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation:

…the form this code takes depends upon social principles which regulate the classification and framing of knowledge made public in educational institutions. (p.86)

Central to the principles is ‘classification’ and ‘frame’. Classification refers to ‘the degree of boundary maintenance between contents’ (ibid). When classification is strong, the boundaries between contents (or subjects) are strong, and they are well insulated from one another. When classification is weak, the boundaries between contents are weak or blurred: that is, there is reduced insulation between contents. In contrast, 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’ (p.89). When framing is strong, there is a sharp boundary between what should and should not be taught. Weak framing, meanwhile,

27 _{To be precise, Bernstein (1975) writes that ‘[f]ormal educational knowledge can be considered to be realized} through three message systems: curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation. Curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, pedagogy defines what counts as a valid transmission of knowledge, and evaluation defines what counts as a valid realization of this knowledge of the part of taught’ (p.85).

is characterised by a blurred boundary between what should and should not be taught. In other words, weak framing offers a range of options to teachers.

In theory, there are four types of educational knowledge codes: (1) strong classification and strong framing; (2) strong classification and weak framing; (3) weak classification and strong framing; and (4) weak classification and weak framing. Bernstein describes the first as ‘collection codes’, and the fourth as ‘integrated codes’.

In principle, collection codes produce a curriculum where ‘contents stand in a closed relation to each other’ (p.87). That is, there is no relation between different contents. Teachers have less authority over the curriculum and pedagogy, whilst they know well what, when and how they need to teach.28 The selection of knowledge is made explicit and public. Therefore, every student (and her parent) knows what, when and how she will learn. Thus, collection codes offer students a greater degree of autonomy, control and direction over their own learning.

In contrast, integrated codes produce a curriculum where ‘contents stand in an open relation to each other’ (p.88). That is, there are relations between contents. Teachers have authority over the curriculum and pedagogy: they decide what, when and how they will teach, through her discussions with students or other teachers.29 The selection of knowledge, however, is less explicit and public, because there is no (national) agreement on it. This means that students may not know what they will

28 _{In his words, Bernstein (1975) writes as follows: ‘Where we have collection, it does not permit in principle} considerable differences in pedagogy and evaluation because of the high insulation between the different contents’ (p.101).

29 _{However, there is a contradiction. Bernstein (1975) argues that ‘the integrated code will not permit the} variation in pedagogy and evaluation which are possible within collection codes… I suggest there will be a pronounced movement towards a common pedagogy and tendency towards a common system of evaluation… Thus,…integrated codes will reduce the discretion of the teacher’ (p.101).

learn exactly, and may yet study in an unsystematic way a variety of contents that are selected from broad undefined areas of knowledge. Integrated codes are often associated with what is called as child-centred approach or education. Importantly, ‘there is a shift in the balance of power, in pedagogical relationship between teacher and taught’ because ‘the reduced discretion of teachers within integrated codes is paralleled by increased discretion of the pupils’ (ibid, his italics).

In terms of knowledge, collection codes ‘create strong frames between the uncommonsense knowledge of the school and the everyday community-based knowledge’ (p.106). In other words, they make school knowledge independent of the student, whist expelling everyday knowledge from learning. Bernstein explains that the frames of the collection codes ‘socialise [the student] into knowledge frames which discourage connections with everyday realities’ (p.109). Thus, knowledge becomes ‘private property with its own power structure and market situation’ (p.97). On the contrary, integrated codes connect school knowledge to the life of the student, namely everyday knowledge. The ideas, feelings and experiences of the student become the subject of school knowledge:

The weak frames enable a greater range of the student’s behaviour to be made public and they make possible considerable diversity (at least in principle) between students. It is possible that this might lead to a situation where assessment takes ‘inner’ attributions of the student more intro account. Thus, if he has the ‘right’ attitudes, this will result later in the attainment of various specific competencies. (p.109)

A key to collection codes is ‘discipline’ (p.98). Firstly, it demands that both teachers and students ‘[learn] to work within a received frame’ (ibid, his italics).

Secondly, it demands that they ‘[accept] a given selection, organization, pacing and timing of knowledge realized in the pedagogical frame’ (ibid). This, for example, establishes a ‘didactic’ relationship between the teacher and the student (p.102). Bernstein argues that, after all, discipline prioritises ‘states of knowledge rather than ways of knowing’ (p.98).

Another important point concerning discipline is that students can gain a specific form of capital (in Bourdieu’s term) through their attendance at a particular discipline (subject). Bernstein writes:

Such framing also makes of educational knowledge something not ordinary or mundane, but something esoteric, which gives a special significance to those who possess it’ (p.99).

Through this process of differentiation, they develop an ‘educational identity’ (p.96) and eventually become specialists, such as scientists, mathematicians, musicians. The difficulty is that if they want to move to another discipline, they have to re-socialise themselves into the discipline. Bernstein says that, since students in integrated codes do not access disciplines, their ‘socialisation can be deeply wounding’ (p.107).

In collection codes, students progress through the various stages of schooling, such as primary, secondary and further schools (in the English context), and when entering university, they first realise that ‘knowledge is permeable’, ‘its orderings are provisional’, and ‘the dialectic of knowledge is closure and openness’ (p.97). Bernstein describes this ‘the ultimate mystery of the subject’ (ibid). The problem is that students can know the ultimate mystery of the subject ‘very late in the educational life’ (ibid). In other words, only successful students, who enter university,

can know it. This means that for those who do not enter university, socialisation into knowledge is ‘socialisation into order, the existing order, into the experience that the world’s educational knowledge is impermeable’ (ibid). For this reason, he regards collection codes as anti-democratic:

The receipt of the knowledge is not so much a right as something that has to be won or earned. The stronger the classification and the framing, the more the educational relationship tends to be hierarchical and ritualised, the educated seen as ignorant, with little statues and few rights. These are things which one earns, rather like spurs, and are used for the purpose of encouraging and sustaining the motivation of pupils. (p.98)

On the contrary, integrated codes are ‘relational’. In other words, various contents, selected based on the need of students, ‘are subordinate to some idea which reduces their isolation from each other’ (p.101).30 This means that (1) ‘[t]he particulars of each subject are likely to have reduced significance’; (2) contents are thematically and genetically organised; (3) emphasis is placed more on ‘the deep structure of each subject’; (4) there are more multi or inter-disciplinary relations between them; (5) attention is given to ‘general principles and the concepts through which these principles are obtained’; and (6) value is given to ‘how knowledge is created’ and indeed ‘various ways of knowing’ (p.102, his italics). In addition, students are offered assessment that maximise their potential rather than their performance.

Bernstein assumes that the underlying theory of integrated codes may be ‘more group or self-regulated’ (p.102): that is, students work together and organise (with

30 _{Bernstein (1975) describes ‘some [relational] ideas’ as ‘a supra content concept, which focuses upon general} principles at a high level of abstraction’ (p.101).

their teacher) what, when and how they will learn. This openness of learning, however, may produce ‘a culture in which neither staff nor pupils have a sense of time, place or purpose’ (p.107). Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to develop a common agreement about learning.31 In this sense, students are vulnerable – students need to adjust themselves to the consensus of their teachers about an integrated code they are adopting.

Finally, Bernstein argues that the ‘disturbance in classification of knowledge will lead to a disturbance of existing authority structures, existing specific educational identities and concepts of property’ (p.101). In other words, a shift from the collection code to the integration code means challenging the authority of the temporal powers. Thus, the integrated code is an anti-structural, potentially subversive, and resistant form of educational socialisation. However, such a shift from the collection code to the integrated code ‘symbolizes that there is a crisis in society’s basic classifications and frames, and therefore a crisis in its structure of power and principle of control’ (p.111).

In the field of drama schools, I propose that there are two main positions of drama: ‘subject’ and ‘method’ (I will explain the definitions of these positions in the next chapter). I argue that the subject position corresponds to collection codes, whilst the method position corresponds to integrated codes.

In the subject position, it is the government (the field of power) that controls

31 _{Bernstein (1975) explains the following four conditions for common agreements about learning: (1) There must} be consensus about the integrating idea and it may be explicit… It may be that integrated codes will only work when there is a high level of ideological consensus among the staff; (2) The nature of the linkage between the integrating idea and the knowledge to be co-ordinated must also be coherently spelled out; (3) A committee system of staff may have to be set up to create a sensitive feed-back system, which will also provide a further agency of socialization into the code; and (4) The form of temporal cohesion of the knowledge regulated through the integrated code has yet to be determined, and made explicit (pp.107-109).

what areas of knowledge of theatre teachers should offer and how and when they should offer, whereas in the method position, it is teachers who decide, according to the needs of their students, what areas of knowledge of theatre (together with other subjects) they can offer and when and how they can offer. In the subject position, there is a didactic relationship between the teacher and students: knowledge of theatre is given from the teacher to students. However, in the method position, the teacher and students decide what they will learn together. The role of the teacher here is to help students select particular areas of knowledge of theatre that are appropriate to learning.

On the part of the students, in the subject position, students only study drama (as a subject), whilst in the method position, students relate drama to other subjects. In the subject position, students acquire the skills and knowledge of theatre to be professional directors, actors or technicians. In contrast, in the method position, students acquire such skills and knowledge to make their lives better (for example, students learn acting to develop their ability for communication). Indeed, in the method position, students can modify skills and knowledge of theatre for their own purposes.