Pedagogies for social justice: did Bernstein get it wrong?

Abstract

This paper explores the often‐touted incompatibility between ‘intellectual rigour’ and ‘relevance’ as this has manifested in Australian debates over Queensland’s New Basics and ‘productive pedagogies’, and associated initiatives such as the New South Wales Quality Teaching Framework. This debate can be located in longer‐standing concerns about how best to meet the educational needs of students who experience social disadvantage. In particular, we focus on the way Bernstein’s concept of ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ discourse has been used by him and others to argue against attempting to make academic knowledge more ‘relevant’ by introducing elements of students out of school lives into the classroom. Drawing on examples from the literature, we trouble Bernstein’s contention that academic and ‘everyday’ knowledge represent different, incompatible knowledge forms that cannot be successfully integrated. This troubling creates an opening for reconsidering the relationship between ‘intellectual rigour’ and ‘relevance’. We argue that we can and should pursue the bringing together of ‘intellectual rigour’ and ‘relevance’ as a means to engage better all students, but particularly those who experience social and educational disadvantage, and improve their learning outcomes. Accordingly, we call for challenging, at a theoretical, practical and policy level, the perception that learning cannot be made relevant without sacrificing intellectual rigour. We also call for more research on teachers already integrating ‘intellectual rigour’ and ‘relevance’, and for teacher professional development and scaffolding to achieve this and to moderate multiple student perspectives and claims to ‘relevance’.

Keywords:

• inclusive education
• curriculum and instruction
• social theory

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge David McInnes for workshopping the ideas that form the basis of this paper, and to him and Lyn Yates for reading the draft manuscript. The authors also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.