Ground rules for talk: the acceptable face of prescription.
Saved in:
| Title: | Ground rules for talk: the acceptable face of prescription. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lambirth, Andrew1 (AUTHOR) andrew.lambirth@canterbury.ac.uk |
| Source: | Curriculum Journal. Dec2009, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p423-435. 13p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Curriculum, *College teachers, *Variation in language, *Classrooms |
| People: | Mercer, Neil |
| Abstract: | In this second article on the theory of 'ground rules for talk' I extend a debate between myself and Professor Neil Mercer over the introduction of 'ground rules' into classrooms. I critique ground rules through the use of sociological theory and argue that advocates of the ground rules perspective need to recognise the ideological nature of their theoretical position. In making this article a clear extension of my previous argument I introduce the work of Bernstein and Fairclough to support my new arguments. I use Bernstein's theory of pedagogy as cultural relay and Fairclough's appropriateness model of language variation to critique 'ground rules perspectives'. In doing so, I draw out the political nature of educational theory and curriculum within the context of a specific socio-economic society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Curriculum Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In this second article on the theory of 'ground rules for talk' I extend a debate between myself and Professor Neil Mercer over the introduction of 'ground rules' into classrooms. I critique ground rules through the use of sociological theory and argue that advocates of the ground rules perspective need to recognise the ideological nature of their theoretical position. In making this article a clear extension of my previous argument I introduce the work of Bernstein and Fairclough to support my new arguments. I use Bernstein's theory of pedagogy as cultural relay and Fairclough's appropriateness model of language variation to critique 'ground rules perspectives'. In doing so, I draw out the political nature of educational theory and curriculum within the context of a specific socio-economic society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09585176 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/09585170903424971 |
