In this paper, we put Basil Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse to work together with additional theoretical resources to interrogate knowledge and practice in mathematics teacher education. We illustrate this methodology through analysis of an instance of mathematics teacher education pedagogic practice. While the methodology itself is our focus, the particular example provides a compelling story at the heart of which is the problem of integration of knowledge(s) within a pedagogic practice. Here, a constructivist pedagogy is at work, but differentially with respect to teaching/learning mathematics and teaching/learning mathematics teaching. The example illuminates mathematics and teaching, and their co-constitution in a particular pedagogic context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
As Graven (2002) explains, “in educational terms, Bernstein’s use of the terms ‘transmitter’ and ‘acquirer’ may seem pejorative. However, he uses them throughout various pedagogic models and they are merely sociological labels for descriptive purposes. They should therefore not be interpreted to imply transmission pedagogies”. (Ch. 2, p. 28).
Elsewhere (Adler & Davis, 2006), we discuss how the internal grammar of these fields varies considerably from very strong (e.g. instances of ‘pure mathematics’) to very weak (e.g. instances of teaching as grounded in ‘experience’), and the impact of these on their integration in mathematics teacher education practice.
Note that the process does not include the normal checking of a solution against the original problem which would be typical of this kind of problem, and would generally be expected. However within this context the meaning is contingently fixed.
Adler, J., Ball, D., Krainer, K., Lin, F. L., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(2), 359–381.
Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 270–296.
Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2011). Modelling teaching in mathematics teacher education and the constitution of mathematics for teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 139–160). New York: Springer.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407. N.B. Paper Submitted August 2007.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (2nd ed.). Oxford: Rowman & LIttlefield.
Brodie, K. (2004). Re-thinking teachers' mathematical knowldge: A focus on thinking practices. Perspectives in Education, 22(1), 65–80.
Chevallard, Y. (1992). Fundamental concepts in didactics: Perspectives provided by an anthropological approach. In R. Douady & A. Mercier (Eds.), Recherches en didactique des mathématiques: Selected papers (pp 131–167). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms. New York.: Teachers' College Press.
Davis, Z. (2001). Measure for measure: Evaluative judgement in school mathematics pedagogic texts. Pythagoras, 56, 2–11.
Davis, Z. (2005). Pleasure and pedagogic discourse in school mathematics: A case study of a problem-centred pedagogic modality. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
Davis, Z., Adler, J., & Parker, D. (2007). Identification with images of the teacher and teaching in formalized in-service mathematics teacher education and the constitution of mathematics for teaching. Journal of Education, 42, 33–60.
Davis, Z., Adler, J., Parker, D., & Long, C. (2003). Quantum research project working paper #5: Elements of the language of description for the production of data. University of the Witwatersrand.
Ensor, P. (2001). From preservice mathematics teacher education to beginning teaching: A study in recontextualizing. Jounal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 296–320.
Ensor, P. (2004). Modalities of teacher education discourse and the education of effective practitioners. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12(2), 217–232.
Gerofsky, S. (1999). Genre analysis as a way of understanding pedagogy in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 36–46.
Graven, M. (2002). Mathematics teacher learning, communities of practice and the centrality of confidence. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Huillet, D. (2009). Mathematics for teaching: An anthropological approach and its use in teaching. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 4–10.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morais, A. M. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559–569.
Parker, D. (2009). The specialisation of pedagogic identities in initial mathematics teacher education in post-apartheid South Africa. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers' mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255–281.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Singh, P. (2002). Pedagogising knowledge: Bernstein's theory of the pedagogic device. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 571–582.
Sullivan, P. (Ed.). (2008). Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teacher development (Vol. 1). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
This paper forms part of the Quantum research project on Mathematics for Teaching, directed by Jill Adler, at the University of the Witwatersrand. This material is based upon work supported by the National Research Foundation under Grant number FA2006031800003.
Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Research Foundation.
The study reported here was part of a PhD taken at the University of the Witwatersrand
Eight forms of pedagogic interaction used to analyse a particular evaluative event:
whole class discussions: where there is interaction amongst students and the lecturer which focuses on a specific idea/example etc, where varied input is welcomed from all parties, and ideas are developed;
small group discussions/work: where students sit in small groups and discuss ideas/examples amongst themselves; where students work together on a problem;
individual work: where students sit on their own and independently work on a problem/reproduction;
lecturer exposition: lecture/expository teaching, where the lecturer presents ideas, examples, and so on, explaining ideas and showing procedures or methods that would lead to reproductions of the legitimate text;
lecturer question and answer: lecturer-controlled questioning and answer sessions, where the lecturer elicits answers to specific questions in order to evaluate specific texts;
student presentations: where students address the whole class and present a specific piece of work, e.g. writing a solution on the board and explaining it to all;
lecturer questions: where the lecturer interacts with students on an individual or small group or whole group basis, asking questions, not to elicit answers, but to get them to consider possibilities/evaluate their own thinking and promote discussion
student questioning: nontrivial student questioning, where students independently ask probing questions of the lecturer, without the questions being elicited by the lecturer—these are not simple questions for purposes of clarification
About this article
Cite this article
Parker, D., Adler, J. Sociological tools in the study of knowledge and practice in mathematics teacher education. Educ Stud Math 87, 203–219 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9421-y
- Mathematics teacher education
- Pedagogic device
- Knowledge and practice
- Evaluative judgement