Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpes20
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20
Knowledge in the school subject of physical education: a Bernsteinian perspective
Jan-Eric Ekberg
To cite this article: Jan-Eric Ekberg (2020): Knowledge in the school subject of physical education: a Bernsteinian perspective, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, DOI:
10.1080/17408989.2020.1823954
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1823954
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 21 Sep 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 218
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Knowledge in the school subject of physical education: a Bernsteinian perspective
Jan-Eric Ekberg
Department of Sport Science, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose of this conceptual article is to explore how Bernstein ’s concepts can further our understanding of the internal structure of knowledge informing physical education (PE) and the transmission of knowledge from its site of production into the school subject. In the process of constructing a school subject, knowledge is chosen and decontextualised from where it is produced and then recontextualised into the pedagogic context. This process involves a subjective selection of what is valued as important knowledge. That which is stipulated in the curriculum is regarded as legitimate knowledge worth transmitting to the younger generation. This article o ffers a deepened understanding of the organising principles of knowledge and the transformation of knowledge into the recontextualised field of PE. Background: The subject of PE has been legitimised in various ways over time, yet in many parts of the world PE as a school subject remains under discussion. Competing ideas have appeared over the years about what constitutes PE, and these have been compared and contrasted with each other. Researchers in the field are concerned with a range of di fferent yet related issues regarding the aim of the subject, the relevance of the content knowledge, and the legitimacy of PE as a school subject. Key concepts: Bernstein ’s concepts of pedagogic device and knowledge structures will be applied as explanatory frameworks. The current PE syllabus and support documents in Sweden serve as examples to illustrate how the use of these two overarching concepts can help deepen the understanding of the internal structure of knowledge informing PE and the transmission of knowledge from its site of production into the school subject. Conclusion:
This article demonstrates how applying Bernstein ’s concepts as an explanatory framework helps identify the characteristics of the knowledge that informs PE and the origin and site of this knowledge. PE appears to be informed by a wide range of di fferent knowledge domains, with each one possessing its own knowledge structure with di fferent characteristics and ways of constructing knowledge. The article suggests that an understanding of the complexity of knowledge informing PE must be taken into consideration in the debate about the subject.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 27 March 2019 Accepted 30 August 2020
KEYWORDSBernstein; physical education;
pedagogic device;
knowledge structures;
explanatory framework
Introduction
The subject of physical education
1(PE) has been legitimised in various ways over the years. Kirk (2010a, 30) explains that ‘defining physical education has actually been a popular thing to do since the 1950s’, and Siedentop (2002, 368) argues that ‘the content knowledge domain for physical
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT
Jan-Eric Ekberg jan-eric.ekberg@mau.se
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1823954
education is not so easily identi fied’. The discussion concerning PE as a school subject continues, both in Sweden (Larsson and Redelius 2008; Ekberg 2009; Larsson 2009; Londos 2010; Quennerstedt 2019) and in many other parts of the world (Siedentop 2002; Kirk 2010b; Penney 2013). Rival ideas about what constitutes PE have been put forth, and these ideas have been compared and contrasted (Kirk 2010b). In Sweden, Larsson and Karlefors (2015) have explained that the objectives of the sub- ject are di ffuse, highlighting the need to develop a language of knowledge and learning. Both teachers and students have di fficulty understanding what motivates both the subject and what the students are meant to learn (see e.g. Larsson and Redelius 2008; Swedish Schools Inspectorate 2012; Nyberg and Larsson 2014; Larsson and Nyberg 2017). As a subject, PE seems to be associated with highly segmented learning and pedagogy (Penney 2013), and many scholars have focused on its content knowledge and multi-activity curriculum (Metzler 2011; Penney 2013; Ward 2013), with its units of short duration. Petrie and lisahunter (2011) have pointed to the confusion teachers have experi- enced because of con flicting interests expressed in official texts, while Macdonald ( 2015) discusses what competencies, core knowledge, skills, and practices are required of a future teacher. The most valuable content for young people to learn in the subject needs to be made clearer (Dyson 2014), but this is unlikely to happen until there is a sound conceptual basis for the subject (Penney et al. 2009). Other aspects should also be taken into consideration when discussing PE in a changing world, such as privatisation tendencies, new governance (Evans and Davies 2014), and the outsour- cing of education (Williams and Macdonald 2015). Given that knowledge is becoming increasingly more accessible, knowledge brokering is on the increase (Macdonald 2015).
The subject of PE has been legitimised in various ways over time, and in many parts of the world the discussion concerning PE as a school subject is ongoing. Competing ideas have been put forth over the years about what constitutes PE, and have been compared and contrasted. Researchers in the field are concerned with a range of various related issues regarding the aim of the subject, the relevance of the content knowledge, and the legitimacy of PE as a school subject (Kirk 2010b; Ekberg 2016). The purpose of this conceptual article is to explore how Bernstein ’s concepts can further our understanding of the internal structure of knowledge informing PE and the transmission of knowl- edge from its site of production into the school subject. By applying the work of Bernstein (1999, 2000) and using his concepts of pedagogic device and knowledge structures as explanatory frame- works, I aim to deepen the understanding of the organising principles of knowledge and the trans- formation of knowledge into a pedagogic context in the subject of PE. I argue that understanding the complexity and characteristics of the knowledge that informs PE and the origin and site of this knowledge must be taken into consideration in the debate about the subject.
The article begins by presenting Bernstein ’s concepts of pedagogic device and knowledge struc- tures, and the second part gives an overview of how Bernstein ’s concepts are applied within PE research. In the third part, the article provides an illustration of a number of these concepts as an explanatory framework, using the PE syllabus in Sweden and support documents as brief examples.
Finally, I discuss how the concepts can contribute to a deeper understanding of the subject of PE based on the complexity and characteristics of the knowledge that informs the subject and the origin and site of this knowledge.
Bernstein ’s theories as explanatory framework
The theoretical concepts applied in this article are grounded in Bernstein ’s rich pedagogical research.
He created comprehensive and multidimensional conceptual systems (McPhail 2016) and looked for
general principles within the school system and the pedagogic context (Bernstein 2000). One of
Bernstein ’s accomplishments was developing the pedagogic device, which refers to the transform-
ation of knowledge produced in the primary field into a pedagogic context (Bernstein 1999). In
his later work, he also developed a language of description, where he outlined a model of knowledge
structures, in which he refers to the internal structure and organising principles of the specialised
knowledge in the primary field (Bernstein 1999).
The pedagogic device
The pedagogic device refers to how knowledge from the primary field is selected, becomes curricular subject content, and then is realised in the pedagogical practice through complex processes (Singh 2002). Three fields are directly or indirectly related to educational practice within school (Bernstein 2000). What there is to know within a field of knowledge is created in the primary field outside school (the production field) and is then recontextualised (in the recontextualising field) into the pedagogical setting in various steering documents where it is finally reproduced in the local school arena, which is referred to as the secondary field. The primary field is directed at disciplinary and non-pedagogical knowledge production, from which a selection is made on the recontextualising field in order to be subsequently manifested in various steering documents. In the secondary field, the chosen knowledge is reformulated on the local level and in local schools in the form of, for example, various local syllabi and teachers ’ planning, to be subsequently transmitted and acquired in the educational practice. The pedagogic device highlights the way knowledge is transferred between di fferent fields. As described, it goes from where the knowledge is produced in the field of production to the field of recontextualisation, where knowledge is transformed into the curricu- lum, and then to the field of reproduction, where knowledge is finally transmitted and acquired in the educational setting. In this article, I focus on the fields of production and recontextualisation.
Knowledge used in school is thus produced outside of school. In the process of constructing a school subject, knowledge is chosen and de-contextualised from ‘its site of production – whether this is a research publication, scienti fic laboratory, a newsroom, a design studio or a factory floor – and recon- textualised into a curriculum ’ (Shay 2013, 567). This relocation requires certain choices, such as what knowledge area should be regarded as the most important in a school subject. Di fferences of opinion about this exist between di fferent actors both inside and outside of school, which may generate confl- icts (Shay 2016). Bernstein (1975) states that education is a field like any other field, with struggles between interests and actors who compete not only to de fine the field but also to define what knowl- edge is to be considered legitimate. Whoever assumes power over the selection of the appropriate sub- ject knowledge also assumes a vital position for symbolic control (Bernstein 2000).
To understand a school subject is to understand the relationship between the field of knowledge production and the field of knowledge recontextualisation (Whatman and Singh 2015). When knowledge moves from one site to another – in our case, to the educational site of PE – a translation takes place which involves certain choices and contestation about what knowledge is important. This transformation also has other implications. When a discourse moves from its original site to a new one, it is no longer the same discourse, as it occupies a space in which ideology takes over (Bernstein 2000). This is the space where selective decisions are made: ‘From this point of view, pedagogic dis- course selectively creates imaginary subjects ’ (Bernstein 2000, 33). By recontextualisation from the primary field, the pedagogic discourse ‘selectively appropriates, relocates, refocuses and relates other discourses to constitute its own order. In this sense, pedagogic discourse can never be identi fied with any of the discourses it has recontextualised ’ (Bernstein 2000, 33) because it is abstracted from not only where it is produced but also its social base, position and power relations (Bernstein 2000).
For example, outside school, there is carpentry, but inside school it is called woodwork, which is a transformation from a real site of knowledge on the production field to an imaginary subject under a new name (Bernstein 2000). Popkewitz (2004) uses the concept of alchemy to describe the translation of knowledge from academic knowledge into school knowledge.
Because children are neither mathematicians nor historians, translation tools are needed for instruction. The alchemy of school subjects, however, is not one thing but many. It is achieved through an assemblage of inscrip- tion devices that translate and order school subjects. (Popkewitz 2004, 4)
Knowledge structures
According to Young (2013, 113 –114), school subjects are recontextualised from disciplines which are
a society ’s primary source of new knowledge. The link between subjects and disciplines provides the best guar- antee that we have that the knowledge acquired by students at school does not rely solely on the authority of the individual teacher but on the teacher as a member of a specialist subject community.
If the pedagogical device helps clarify how specialised knowledge moves from its site of production on the primary field to where it is reproduced in education, the theorisation of knowledge structures (Figure 1) clarifies the internal structure of the specialised knowledge on the primary field.
Bernstein (1999) outlined a model where he made a distinction between two types of knowledge discourses – one horizontal discourse and one vertical discourse. The model was ‘designed to think about different knowledge forms and the relations between these knowledge forms’ (Ivinson and Singh 2018, 462). With the model, he further elaborates on how different forms of knowledge are realised in the two discourses. The distinction ‘refers to the way that different domains of knowledge embody different ideas of how knowledge progresses’ (Young 2008, 16).
Horizontal discourses refer to ‘common sense’ knowledge, which is highly contextualised and seg- mented and is obtained in everyday contexts as learning to dress, running errands (Bernstein 1999), or as myths, rumours and superstitions (Ivinson 2007). According to Bernstein (1999, 159), the characteristics of this discourse are that it is ‘oral, local, context dependent and specific, tacit, multi-layered, and contradictory across but not within contexts’, and it is segmentally organised.
What is required in a context or segment is not related to the requirements of another context or segment. Young and Gamble (2006) explain that a horizontal discourse has no way to extend knowl- edge structures vertically, and it rarely has systematic organising principles (Bernstein 1999).
In contrast, vertical discourses refer to more abstract knowledge that is context-independent, specialised, conceptual and organised. Bernstein explains that a vertical discourse takes the form of a
coherent, explicit and systematically principled structure, hierarchically organised, as in the sciences, or it takes the form of a series of specialised languages with specialised modes of interrogation and specialised criteria for the production and circulation of texts, as in the social sciences and humanities. (Bernstein 1999, 159)
Figure 1.
