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.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 46722251 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Ground rules for talk: the acceptable face of prescription. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lambirth%2C+Andrew%22">Lambirth, Andrew</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> andrew.lambirth@canterbury.ac.uk</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Curriculum+Journal%22">Curriculum Journal</searchLink>. Dec2009, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p423-435. 13p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum%22">Curriculum</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+teachers%22">College teachers</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Variation+in+language%22">Variation in language</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classrooms%22">Classrooms</searchLink> – Name: SubjectPerson Label: People Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="PE" term="%22Mercer%2C+Neil%22">Mercer, Neil</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: 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] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>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.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=46722251 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/09585170903424971 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 StartPage: 423 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Curriculum Type: general – SubjectFull: College teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Variation in language Type: general – SubjectFull: Classrooms Type: general – SubjectFull: Mercer, Neil Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Ground rules for talk: the acceptable face of prescription. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lambirth, Andrew IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Text: Dec2009 Type: published Y: 2009 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 09585176 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 20 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Curriculum Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
