Sociology of education and the design field: Operationalising the theory

Lucila Carvalho and Andy Dong

Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning

University of Sydney

Abstract

This research investigates how knowledge and identity are specialized within the

field of design, particularly focusing on engineering, architecture, digital media

and fashion. In this paper, we present a Bersteinian approach to the

development of the research’s languages of description. Methodological

implications are discussed through the lessons we have learned in the

development of research instruments (e.g. the interview questionnaire and the

survey protocol), and the mapping of the theory to empirical data and vice versa.

We also present how Basil Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing and

Karl Maton’s concepts of ‘legitimation codes’, combined with the empirical

results, might support instructional purposes when embedded in an e-learning

environment about experiencing the practice of design in the informal learning

setting of a museum.

1. INTRODUCTION

Design deals with how knowledge and ideas are transformed into a material

product. As a field, design encompasses many disciplines (e.g. engineering,

1

architecture, fashion design and others) with a range of newly emergent “multi-

disciplinary” areas (e.g. human-computer interaction, experience design,

sustainable design and others). Designers from different disciplines may employ

similar processes when designing. However, this does not necessarily mean that

all design disciplines possess the same sociological values, or that members of

the different design groups identify genuine practices in similar ways. In fact,

different design disciplines are likely to possess their own implicit agreements,

regulating the basis of achievement and membership within each group.

This research investigates how knowledge and knowers are specialized within

four design disciplines: engineering, architecture, digital media and fashion

design. In depth interviews and a survey were carried out with various designers

in the exploratory stage of the research, which investigated the underlying

principles regulating knowledge within design. Ultimately, the research aims to

identify and implement ways to support someone, who is new to design, in their

inquiry into what the discipline considers as legitimate design practice. As a

result, an e-learning environment is being developed to support design learners

in a design experience within an informal learning setting. Through interaction

with the e-learning environment, learners will go through the inquiry process

connected to the design of an object within a museum context. As they go

through activities connected to the design of an object, the environment will offer

learners an opportunity to have a taste of designing, by providing guidance and

suggesting strategies that could be used to validate the learners’ emergent

2

design concepts and ideas. Guidance and strategies suggested within the e-

learning environment are grounded on results from the first phase of the

research.

The concept of languages of description is defined by Bernstein as a “translation

device whereby one language is transformed into another” (2000, p.132).

Bernstein (2000) differentiates between an internal language of description (L1) –

or the principles for what counts as significant empirical relation within the study;

and an external language of description (L2) – or the principles for how concepts

are manifested in the study, how concepts relate to the empirical data or how

concepts are opertionalised. In this paper, we discuss the development of this

research’s languages of description, taking the reader through our process as we

examine how the theory became operationalised. Departing from a simple

methodological question: “How can one develop instruments to identify,

investigate or measure the theoretical concepts in our framework?”, we discuss

the lessons we have learned throughout the process. Such lessons relate to the

development of the research instruments (the interview and the survey protocols)

and its methodological implications, which also in turn influenced the framework

developed to guide the research process.

In the next section, we present the theoretical background of this research.

Section 3 introduces the research design, followed by a discussion of how the

theoretical concepts become operationalised. Section 5 presents how the

3

theoretical concepts combined with the empirical results, are being embedded in

an e-learning environment about experiencing the practice of design, in the

informal learning setting of a museum. The last section examines the implications

of our research and concludes the paper, pointing to the future directions of our

research

2. SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION AND THE DESIGN FIELD

Basil Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourses examines its various practices,

focusing on analysing the underlying rules that shape their social construction

(Bernstein, 1977). Bernstein’s ideas consider how the use of language reflects

and shapes assumptions one has about groups. We hypothesise that, within the

field of design, design practitioners and design educators are likely to be

reproducing knowledge as established by the disciplinary group to which they

belong. The practice of design professionals and design pedagogy are

considered to reflect and shape how design knowledge is specialised in the

various design disciplines.

Within his theory, Bernstein conceptualised how, in order to produce legitimate

forms of communication, the learner first needs to identify (or “recognise”) the

relevant meanings to the context one is in to produce texts and communicate (or

“realise”) according to what is expected within the context. In design education,

this means that design learners will first need to be able to identify what are the

“rules of the game” within the disciplinary group they are entering into. What

4

counts as special or interesting, what should these learners pay attention to, in

order to be able to communicate according to the expectations of this specific

design discipline. Learning in design therefore, involves much more than being

acquainted with design theories or principles; it is more than being proficient on

specific procedures, design processes or having skills and knowledge of the

technology available to do design. Learning in design involves understanding the

implicit meanings and values of the particular design discipline one is interested

in. If learning in design within a formal educational setting may present its own

challenges for the learner, within an informal learning context (such as a

museum) one could assume that such implicit meanings of the various

disciplinary groups would be perhaps even more diffuse and a even greater

challenge for a newcomer to design.

The concepts of Classification and Framing were developed by Bernstein (1977)

as codes to analyse relationships of power and control within a given pedagogic

context. Classification refers to how knowledge is organised, expressing the

power of a category in maintaining its knowledge, and Framing relates to how

communication takes place between the transmitter and acquirer of knowledge.

The control over the communication can be in relation to the selection of the

communication, its sequencing, pacing, the criteria used for evaluation and over

the base in which this interaction is taking place. Stronger and weaker values

may be assigned for Classification (C+/C-) depending, for instance, on the

degree of differentiation of disciplines in a curriculum. Similarly, one can refer to

5

stronger and weaker values for Framing (F+/F-) – depending on whether the

transmitter or the acquirer is in (perceived) control of the communication.

Bernstein’s theory (1977) offers a way to analyse design knowledge and

education, which can perhaps provide insights into why certain design disciplines

may appear unappealing or unachievable to some, and why some students may

encounter more difficulties than others in understanding these “unwritten rules” of

design. Bernstein’s concepts are yet to be applied within the design field,

although they have been explored within several empirical studies in the

literature, analysing relationships of power and knowledge within various

educational contexts (Botelho & Morais, 2006; Morais & Neves, 2001; Rifa &

Hernandez, 1997; Maton, 2006).

In recent years, Maton (2004, 2006) expanded Bernstein’s theory by proposing a

framework to analyse how “knowers” are specialised, in addition to how

“knowledge” is specialised. The rationale behind the “Legitimation Code Theory”

(LCT) is that every practice or knowledge claim is made by “someone” and it is

about “something”. In this way, knowledge claims and practices comprise of two

relations: the epistemic relation to the object; and the social relation to the

subject, author or actor. The framework develops four possible codes, in which

epistemic and social relation are expressed. Different practices may emphasise

these two relations differently, and, as a result, these relations may be

represented as being stronger or weaker within a continuum of strengths. This

means that knowledge can be seen as specialised by its epistemic relation, by its

6

social relation, by both or neither – its specific structure would vary depending on

the field or discipline. These ideas were translated into the notion of “legitimation

codes of specialisation”. Using the concepts of Classification and Framing of

knowledge, stronger or weaker values may be assigned to epistemic relation (ER

+/-) and for social relation (SR +/-), with classification and framing of knowers

(Maton, 2004, 2006).

As a result, the legitimation codes of specialisation propose four possible codes:

“knowledge code” (ER+/SR-), “knower code” (ER-/SR+), “elite code” (ER+/SR+)

and “relativist code” (ER-/SR-) (Maton, 2004, 2006). The knowledge code

emphasises procedures appropriate to an object, whilst in the knower code, the

emphasis lies on personal characteristics or the background of the author. The

elite code emphasises both, the possession of specialist knowledge in addition to

the “right kinds” of dispositions, whereas in the relativist code neither knowledge

nor dispositions are required: anything goes.

Legitimation Code Theory was used to analyse the perceptions of design

knowledge and knowers within the four design disciplines being investigated in

this study. We explored the use of LCT within different methods (qualitative and

quantitative) and at different stages of the research: exploratory investigation and

a practical implementation of an e-learning environment. We also embedded

Bernstein’s concept of Framing within the e-learning environment, by offering

learners the possibility to choose how much they want to be in control of their

7

design experience. Learners can choose to be more or less guided in a more

objective or subjective way (see Section 5 of this paper). The question we pose

is whether design learners would choose guidance that is more or less grounded

on the grammar of a specific design discipline, within the disciplinary groups in

the study. For example: “Will someone who decides to design a “bridge” or a

“car” within this museum setting, also choose the guidance grounded in the

underlying principles of engineering as a discipline?” The idea is to investigate

whether design learners, within an informal learning context, would be more or

less reproducing the values as established within the disciplinary groups in the

study (engineering, architecture, digital media and fashion). The next section of

this paper, briefly reports the research design employed, before discussing how

the theory became operationalised and how the sociological concepts were

embedded in the e-learning environment.

3. RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design follows a mixed methods approach, and comprises of three

phases: a qualitative study (interviews), a quantitative study (online survey) and a

field study (e-learning environment). The interviews along with the survey, aim to

provide insights into how knowledge and identity are specialised within four

design disciplines (engineering, architecture, digital media and fashion design).

While the in depth interviews investigate the perceptions of design disciplines

and designers in detail, the survey explored the extent or breadth of these

themes within design. In sum, the aims of this research involved: (1) to

8

conceptualise how knowledge and identity are specialized within four design

disciplines; and (2) to define and implement ways of supporting design learners

in their inquiry into legitimate design practices, through an e-learning

environment.

3.1. Qualitative Study: In depth interviews

The qualitative study involved in depth interviews with 2 designers from each of

the four design disciplines, in addition to 2 staff members of a museum of design

(a curator and a museum educator). Interviews with designers explored themes

related to designers’ perceptions of the design disciplines, perceptions of

designers and strategies used to identify legitimate design practices. Interviews

with museum staff explored their perceptions of the design disciplines,

perceptions of designers, and strategies used by museums educators to facilitate

design learners inquiry into design, within the informal learning setting of a

museum.

3.2. Quantitative study: Online survey

The second phase of the study comprised of a survey to further explore

designers’ perceptions. The sample involved 140 participants (design

practitioners, academic staff and tertiary students) within the four design

disciplines. Seventeen universities and tertiary institutions, both in Australia and

overseas, were approached via email and invited to participate in the study. The

survey was done online and explored the same themes from the interviews:

9

perceptions of the design disciplines, perceptions of designers and strategies

used by designers.

3.3. Development, implementation and evaluation of an e-learning

environment

The third phase of the study involved the development, implementation and

evaluation of an e-learning environment. In this phase of the research, the

themes generated in previous phases are being developed and incorporated into

an e-learning environment, which is being designed to support design learners’

inquiry in an informal setting. The e-learning environment will be evaluated in a

field study, in the Powerhouse Museum (Sydney, Australia), in which students’

perception of design will be explored, before and after using the environment.

4. OPERATIONALISING THE THEORY: DEVELOPING AN EXTERNAL

LANGUAGE OF DESCRIPTION

A matrix to guide the research process was created in order to map concepts

derived from Bernstein’s and Maton’s theories to the instruments used for data

collection and the empirical data itself. Initially, the matrix comprised of a

framework to categorise statements or questions to be used in the interviews and

survey protocol. The matrix evolved with the piloting of the initial instruments and

the collection of the empirical data. In the next section, different parts of this

matrix are discussed through the lessons we have learned during the research

process.

10

4.1. Lessons learned within the qualitative study

The pilot for the qualitative study involved interviewing two design academics –

an architect and an engineer (Carvalho & Dong, 2007). Methodological

implications from this pilot study involved modifying and adjusting questions in

the interview protocol, and the interview sample. The sample of the qualitative

study, which initially comprised of design academics, was altered to be of design

professionals. Pilot data suggested that design knowledge could perhaps show

differential values for Classification between academia and professionals due to

our assumption of a stronger research agenda in academia. This could mean

weaker Classification (C-) if academics felt pressured to intensely exchange

ideas with other disciplines, through collaboration with other researchers. We

also hypothesised that design academics, because of this research agenda,

would be more likely to use similar strategies in their practices, across all design

disciplines, a factor that would perhaps not be so prevalent among design

industry practitioners.

It was then decided to initially investigate how designers in the professional

domain view their discipline. The sample for the qualitative study became then of

design practitioners who would not primarily be involved in academia. The

academic sample was, nonetheless, included in the quantitative study.

11

The final interview protocol comprised of three parts, investigating: (1)

perceptions of design disciplines; (2) perceptions of designers; and, (3) strategies

used. The protocol used a majority of open-ended questions to investigate each

area of study. Nonetheless, at the end of the questionnaire, interviewees were

asked to use two Likert scales (frequency and importance) to categorise their

perceptions of the design field and strategies used in their practices. Table 1

summarises each category being investigated in the study, the type of task used

and sample questions extracted from the interview protocol.

Category Type of task Sample Questions Open-ended questions How would you describe your design

discipline to someone that is new to the field? How does your discipline determine what great design is?

Perceptions of the Design Field

Knowledge (object x subject) Likert scale (Importance)

Skills, techniques and specialist knowledge Natural-born talent Taste, judgment or a developed “feel” for it

Perceptions of a Designer

Open-ended questions What are the essential characteristics that a designer must have? What qualities do you look for on a prospective employee/partner?

Open-ended questions How do you evaluate your own work? The practice of other designers? How do you keep up to date with what is going on your field?

Strategies Likert scale (Frequency) Designers in my discipline... consult scientific journals. Designers in my discipline… participate in conferences.

Table 1: Summary of interview protocol

The matrix to guide the research process started to take shape. In connection to

the qualitative study, the matrix consists of a table in which the mapping of the

theory to data can take place. The table comprises of four headings and their

12

descriptions: (1) concepts; (2) description of concept; (3) description of how

concept manifests in study and (4) an example extracted from data. Table 2

illustrates the matrix in relation to the interview data:

Concept ER+ ER- Description of Concept

Knowledge from discipline is emphasized. (e.g. skills, procedures or techniques).

The specialist knowledge of the discipline is not emphasized.

How concept manifests in current study

Emphasis is placed on knowledge within own discipline. Designers refer to the application of design knowledge. Designers focus on how a solution meets a proposed problem and how the technical challenges are overcome so that the designed product could be generated.

Emphasis is placed on exchanging ideas with other design disciplines, and/or learning from other unrelated disciplines. Experiences from outside own discipline are valued, and designers use of multiple channels to acquire knowledge.

Example “Where the real originality in that project is, is not necessarily the bridge itself, it’s just the application. It is taking that type of bridge and putting it where it is to solve a problem which was about rocks falling off the face of the cliff. Again it is about the solution to what was probably a geotechnical issue which was slope stability was down by a bridge.” (engineering designer 1)

“I find ideas… is from everywhere, you know, Alfred Hitchcock once said ideas come from everywhere and I think that’s really true and when I’m sort of stuck on an idea I’ll get up from the office and I’ll go for a walk or I’ll take myself out and do something else like I’ll go and see a film” (digital media designer 1)

Table 2: LCT concepts and interview data

4.2. Lessons learned within the quantitative study

The survey protocol followed the same three thematic categories from the

interviews: (1) perceptions of design disciplines, (2) perceptions of designers and

(3) strategies used. However, differently from the interviews, the survey protocol

used multiple-choices exploring participants perceptions in a more directive

manner.

(1) Survey - Perceptions of the design field

13

Perceptions of the design disciplines were explored through two questions in the

survey. The first question asked the participants to choose three words that could

be used to describe each design discipline. Participants had to complete a

sentence about each discipline (e.g. “Engineering design is…”) using their own

words or by picking one out of a list of 16 words in a drop down menu. From the

16 words presented to participants, 8 were considered to be associated with

strong epistemic relation, and 8 words were associated with strong social

relation. This list of words was generated from a pilot study, discussed in section

4.2.1. of this paper.

The second question exploring perceptions of the design disciplines used a

Lickert scale. This question examined whether knowledge within a particular

discipline was perceived as emphasising epistemic or social relation. The same

format of this question has been used in previous studies exploring Legitimation

Code Theory (Lamont & Maton, 2008). Table 3 summarises the survey format,

illustrating the type of tasks, sample questions and LCT concepts:

Category Type of task Sample Questions ER+/ SR+ Choose 3 words from a list of 16/ pick own to complete a sentence

Engineering design is… 8 ER+ words - e.g. Scientific, Technical, Objective 8 SR+ words - e.g. Social, Empathic, Driven by taste

Perceptions of the Design Field

Knowledge (object x subject) Likert Scale (Maton)

Skills, techniques and specialist knowledge Natural-born talent Taste, judgment or a developed “feel” for it

ER + SR+ SR+

Table 3: Survey: Perceptions of the design field

14

(2) Survey - Perceptions of designers

Similarly to the previous section, the survey asked the participants to choose

three words that could be used to describe designers in each design discipline.

Participants had to complete a sentence about designers (e.g. “An engineering

designer is…”) using their own words or by picking one out of a list 14 words in a

drop down menu. From the 14 words presented to participants 7 were

considered to be associated with strong epistemic relation, and 7 words were

associated with strong social relation. As in the previous section of the survey,

this list of words was generated from a pilot study, discussed in section 4.2.1. of

this paper. The second task, exploring the perceptions of designers, presented

the participants with a series of statements of a fictitious designer. The order of

statements was randomly arranged in each survey. Participants were asked to

choose which design profession the person might work in, and they could

associate a statement with as many design disciplines as they wanted. Table 4,

summarises this part of the survey, showing sample questions and how the LCT

concepts were employed with each task.

Table 4: Survey: Perceptions of designers

Category Type of task Sample Questions ER+/ SR+ Choose 3 words from a list of 15/ pick own to complete a sentence

An engineering designer is... 7 ER+ words - e.g. a scientific person, a technical person 7 SR+ words - e.g. a social person, a tasteful person

J. is a very methodical person. That is why s/he chose this sort of work.

ER+

Perceptions of Designers

Choose which discipline the statement of fictitious designer could be in (multiple disciplines or none may be assigned)

I. recognizes the value of beauty. In her/his profession one certainly needs a great sense of taste.

SR+

15

(3) Survey – Strategies related to design practices and work

Two of the survey questions examined strategies related to design practices and

work. These questions aimed at exploring how designers probe or examine the

structuring of knowledge in design. The first task presented a list of statements

(randomly arranged at each survey) about activities designers might get involved

with in their work. Participants were asked to use a Likert scale (frequency) to

describe how the statements applied to their design discipline. The second

question in this part of the survey was an open ended question in which

participants were invited to write about strategies they would like to comment on,

or any other comment about the survey. Table 5 illustrates the type of tasks

within this theme, sample questions and their association with LCT concepts.

Table 5: Survey: Strategies

Category Type of task Sample Questions ER+/ SR+ Open ended question Are any strategies or

comments you would like to add?

n/a

...participate in conferences to listen to new ideas in the field

ER+

Strategies

Statements using a Likert scale (frequency). Designers in my discipline...

... express their feelings through their design work

SR+

A first pilot study was also conducted in connection to the survey. The pilot

involved a paper based survey with thirteen high school students (Carvalho &

Dong, 2007). As a result, a number of adjustments were undertaken in the

design of the survey protocol, and a separate small study was conducted in order

to decide about which words were to be used in the survey protocol.

16

4.2.1. Conducting a separate study: Assigning codes to a list of words

Words List - Pilot 1

As discussed in section 4.2, participants in the survey were presented with lists

of words that they could use to describe a design discipline and designers.

Initially, a compilation of words to be used in the survey pilot was produced

through a brainstorm of ideas: the task to the researchers was to think of as

many words as possible to describe a profession or job. A list with 50 words was

produced and piloted with high school students. The list presented the words in

alphabetical order and included adjectives that were categorised as:

(1) knowledge code, e.g. procedural, technical and driven by knowledge,

(2) knower code, e.g. social, subjective and driven by taste,

(3) elite code, e.g. glamorous, outstanding and elite,

(4) relativist code, which included adjectives with generic connotation in

terms of coding orientation but denoting a positive, negative or neutral emphasis,

e.g. modern, boring and curious.

As a result of this pilot, we identified a need to change the way we were working

within the LCT codes. Instead of trying to identify the code itself (knowledge,

knower, elite or relativist) we shifted our approach to identifying the values on the

relations instead. As explained in section 2, each LCT code is a combination of

the strengths of two relations (epistemic and social relation). By looking at each

relation separately, or isolating each of them prior to assigning the code, we were

17

able to focus the analysis, which ultimately facilitates the process of identifying

the code itself. It became, therefore, a three step process:

(1) Examine epistemic relation and identify strengths of epistemic relation

(ER+ or ER-).

(2) Examine social relation and identify strengths of social relation (SR+ or

SR- ) and

(3) Combine the relations to identify the LCT code (ER+SR- = knowledge;

ER-SR+ = knower; ER+SR+ = elite; ER-SR- relativist)

The second lesson learned was that the words we were categorising as being

expressing an elite code were actually words connected to the semantic meaning

of the word “elite” not the LCT theoretical driven meaning. As explained in

section 2, the elite code is intended to express strong epistemic relation and

strong social relation, but does not necessarily imply a social superiority as

defined by “elite” or “outstanding”. Moreover, as a result of this initial pilot of the

survey, we identified a need to explore the semantic meanings that were actually

being assigned when a person uses a specific word to describe a discipline. If

someone says engineering is “innovative” and “clever” or “creative”, could we

definitely say they were talking about strong epistemic relation? Or social

relation? Or both? How could we verify the meanings being assigned to words

according to the theoretical concepts we were working with? As a result, a

second pilot study was performed.

18

Words List - Pilot 2

A new list was created comprising of 55 adjectives or expressions. In this second

pilot, participants were given instructions and a sheet of paper containing a list of

words and a table. Participants were asked to complete the table by assigning

words under different headings:

(1) Words that could be used to describe a discipline that emphasises technical

content, skills, and/or techniques

(2) Words that could be used to describe a discipline that emphasises personal

or social dispositions, aptitudes and attitudes.

(3) Words that were not connected to the two above, but could express a

positive, negative or neutral connotation

Participants were also asked to provide their own words if they wished so.

From this second pilot study, we realized that instructions were too complex and

the task of writing 55 words on paper was too laborious. A third pilot was then

conducted.

Words List - Pilot 3

The third pilot involved presenting participants with two sets of 30 flash cards.

The first set of flash cards had words that could be used to describe a job or a

discipline. The second set contained words to describe a professional or worker.

19

Nine participants were invited to take part in this pilot. Participants were

explained that some jobs privileged skills, techniques and specialist knowledge,

and in other jobs personality or personal background were more important in

order to be successful. We then asked participants for their examples of jobs in

each category. Examples of jobs/professionals that were perceived as

emphasising skills, techniques and specialist knowledge included Medicine,

Engineering, Mechanic, IT, Surgeon, Research and others. Examples of

jobs/professionals that were perceived as emphasising personality and/or

personal background included Journalism, Writing, Arts, Marketing,

Entertainment Industry, Sales, Welfare Work and others. Participants were then

asked to assign each card under 4 categories:

(1) Skills, techniques and specialist knowledge

(2) Personality, personal background

(3) Both – if they thought a word could express both categories above

(4) Neither – if they thought they would not use the word in the card to

describe a job.

Table 6 summarises the results from this pilot study. Words that were perceived

as expressing both categories (e.g. innovative, clever, or creative) were taken

away from the survey. In brackets is the number of answers for each word, out of

a total of 9 participants in the pilot. These words were used in the questions of

the survey protocol.

20

Describe a job or profession Describe a worker or professional

ER+ SR+ ER+ SR+ Scientific (9) Technical (9) Methodical (7) Systematic (7) Objective (6) Procedural (5) Skillful (5) Driven by knowledge (5)

Social (8) Empathic (7) Driven by taste (6) Fancy (6) Glamorous (6) Individual (6) Influential (5) Elegant (5)

A scientific person (8) A technical person (7) A procedural person (6) A methodical person (5) An objective person (5) A problem solver (5) A systematic person (5)

A social person (7) A tasteful person (5) An empathic person (5) A glamorous person (4) A sensitive person (4) An individualist person (4) An artist (4)

Table 6: Results: Words List Pilot 3

4.3. Exploratory phase: Overall approach

In this exploratory phase of the research, we investigated three main themes

(perceptions of design disciplines, perceptions of designers and strategies used),

triangulating the data gathering within each of this themes. Following a

Bernsteinian approach, we incorporated different framing levels within the

instruments. For instance, while the interview protocol used a majority of open-

ended questions, allowing for the interviewee’s greater control over the

communication (F-), the majority of the survey questions used closed questions

(multiple choices). These more assertive and directive questions were employed,

for instance, by suggesting the use of a pre-determined list of words (F+),

although participants could also use their own words when describing a discipline

and designers, if they so wished. Table 7 summarises the different levels of

framing in relation to the instruments used.

Table 7: Framing levels & instruments

Instrument Perceptions of Design Disciplines

Perceptions of Designers

Strategies

Survey F+ F+ F+ Interview F- F- F-

21

Overall, some of the methods were thought to be better than others, while some

were more laborious than others. For instance the open ended questions within

the interviews phase was very successful. Participants offered insights into the

knowledge structuring within their design disciplines and we were able to collect

data within the themes (perceptions of discipline, perceptions of designers and

strategies). We were also able to successfully identify the LCT codes in each

design discipline, by examining the strengths of epistemic and social relation

during the analysis of the interviews.

On the other hand, the survey process was much more laborious, more piloting

of instruments were necessary, and several adjustments were undertaken before

the final survey protocol was produced. In spite of our efforts to create a list of

words grounded on a consensus of people’s perceptions with regard to what

those words would be describing (e.g. an emphasis on ER or SR) the use of a

pre-established list of words was still contested by some participants of the

survey. In particular, these participants seemed to be uncomfortable with the

Stronger Framing of the survey context, with being less in control of how their

ideas could be communicated. These participants just disregarded the option,

also offered in the survey, that they could actually choose their own words to

describe a discipline, if they so wished. They reported being unhappy with the

use of the pre-established list of words and statements, arguing that stereotypes

were being put forward and reporting feelings of being assigned into “boxes”.

22

Survey data is still being collected and data analysis is to be undertaken in near

future. Nevertheless, on the whole the methodology employed allowed us to

explore the flexibility of the theoretical framework, looking at the different ways in

which the concepts could be used, within the exploratory study. The next section

discusses the theoretical framework in relation to the development of the e-

learning environment. We also introduce how the empirical results are being

embedded into the e-learning structure.

5. FIELD CENTERED E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

This research project is part of a major study being conducted in conjunction with

the Powerhouse Museum (Sydney, Australia). Foremost, the study explores the

use of mobile computing systems to enhance the learning experiences in the

museum, and its primary aim is to nurture experiential learning and informal

discovery. The module of the research we are working with, aims at supporting

design learners in going through a design experience within the museum setting.

5.1. Setting the learning context: Powerhouse museum & VectorLab

The Powerhouse museum is considered to be the largest (20,000 square metres)

and most popular museum in Australia (Powerhouse Museum, 2008). Its

collection contains 385,000 objects, which aims at engaging museum visitors’

into a variety of learning experiences in topics such as history, science,

technology, design, industry, decorative arts, music, transport and space

exploration. The museum has 22 permanent exhibitions and a number of

23

temporary exhibitions, offering visitors a variety of experiences through touch

screen computers, audio phones, science experiments, virtual reality 3D

theatres, performances, films, lectures and public programs. Within the museum

premises the SoundHouse & VectorLab offers structured workshops to groups of

students and/or teachers. VectorLab programs focus on use of computer

systems in image production and manipulation through 2D, 3D, video and motion

graphics.

Our research project involves re-designing the 3D workshops offered at the

VectorLab. In the current model, students attend a workshop within the

VectorLab premises which much resembles a classroom/lab experience. The re-

modeling of the 3D workshops aims at integrating the design learning experience

with the museum setting. Students will use a mobile system to guide and support

their inquiry processes connected to the design of an object, and direct these

learners to different sections of the museum, different resources (online or

otherwise) and suggest different strategies to be used by learners throughout

their learning experience (e.g. talk and interact with others), before performing

the 3D design within the lab module. Moreover, the e-learning environment

integrates into its framework, Bernstein’s and Maton’s concepts, as well as the

empirical data gathered in the exploratory phase of this research.

24

5.2. The structure of the e-learning environment

The environment’s learning objective is to support the inquiry process related to

the design of an object, offering users an opportunity to experience design, or in

other words, “to have a go” at being a designer, within an informal learning

setting. Learners will be provided with as much guidance as requested

throughout the experience. Upon request, the e-learning environment suggests

strategies and information, with which learners may be able to validate their own

inquiry into the design of the object.

In entering the e-learning environment, design learners are greeted by a host

(played in short film), who introduces them to the design experience. Learners

are then invited to choose a character, who will accompany them throughout the

design experience, providing advice and support. Alternatively, learners may

choose to have a character assigned to them. In this case, a character will be

assigned according to the choice of object (engineering, architecture, digital

media or fashion design related object). In order to assign the character

according to object the system uses the results from the empirical data.

The environment is being developed with Flash, to be installed in a mobile

system (PDAs, tablet PC or macbook), and uses short films inbuilt into the

application. Table 8 summarises the different layers of the e-learning

environment:

25

Table 8: Layers of the e-learning environment

1. Introduction Introduction to design experience (film of Host)

2. Gender Options of male or female characters (silhouettes)

3. Studios Options of orientation are dependent on choice of character (film): (ER+SR-, ER-SR+, ER+SR+, ER- SR-) or (character assigned according to choice of object)

4. Selection:

(what type of guidance?)

No guidance during design process (F--)

Show options and let learner choose (F-)

Show advice to be followed in a certain task (F+)

(not in use)

Show all info available (F++)

5. Pacing:

(when to get advice?)

No access to advice (F--)

Advice is accessed under request (F-)

Advice is accessed when need identified (F+)

(not in use)

Always pop up advice (F++)

6. Choice of objects to design

e.g. design a dress, a car, a bridge, a chair etc

Learner chooses where to start experience (F-)

Learner is guided in where to start (F+)

7. Sequencing

(where is experience starting?)

Options to start at: (1) Understanding the design problem, (2) Coming up with a plan, (3) Developing the concept

7. Design activities linked to each phase of design process.

Learners are also asked to select what type of guidance they would like to

receive, an object they would like to design, and in what part of a design process

cycle they want to start their experience. Within each of the phases of a design

process, learners are invited to complete tasks which are aimed to promote

insights into the design of their chosen object. Learners have the possibility to

choose whether to access more information about the tasks and/or strategies in

how to complete tasks, and themes to reflect after they have finished the task.

The guidance aims to support their learning experience and provide a glimpse of

26

ways in which they can check whether their emergent design idea is in tune with

the particular design discipline their chosen object is from.

5.3. Embedding framing levels into structure

Bernstein’s concept of Framing is embed in the e-learning environment aiming at

offering learners an opportunity to decide whether they want to be more or less in

control of their learning experience. By embedding different Framing Levels (F+,

F-) in its structure, learners are offered opportunities to choose what type of

guidance they want to receive (selection of the communication), when to get

advice (pacing of the communication), and where in the design cycle their design

experience will start (sequencing of the communication). Table 9, 10 and 11

below exemplify the options in the setting up stage, and their corresponding

framing values:

Pacing of the Communication – When do I want to receive guidance?

F- - Learner never accesses advice from any adviser.

F- Adviser briefly explains the design process, and learner chooses when to access the types of guidance.

F+ Adviser to pop when need is perceived. (Not in use)

F++ Adviser accompanies the learner throughout the experience.

Table 9: Pacing of the communication

Selection of the Communication – What type of guidance?

F-- Learner receives no guidance during the design process.

F- Adviser shows learner the options for advice available and learner chooses which one s/he wants to access (what/why/how to do a task/ reflect).

F+ Suggest what advice I should choose in a given task. (Not in use)

F++ Adviser shows learner all the advice available explaining the design process in detail. (what/why/how to do a task/ reflect).

Table 10: Selection of the communication

27

Sequencing of communication – Where is the experience going to start?

F- Learner chooses where to start design experience (within different phases of a design cycle)

F+ Learner is guided in which phase of a design cycle the design experience will start

Table 11: Sequencing of the communication

5.4. Embedding Legitimation Code Theory

Legitimation Code Theory was embedded in the characters’ profiles. Four types

of design studios were created and are hosted by four different designers (played

by films of characters). Learners have an opportunity to choose which designer

they would like as an adviser. Each character has a female and a male version.

One designer (Roger or Rachel Rules) strongly emphasises epistemic relation

and weakly emphasises social relation (ER+SR-), a second one (Christopher or

Christine Creative) weakly emphasize epistemic relations and strongly

emphasize social relation (ER-SR+), a third one (Alexander or Alexandra All)

strongly emphasize epistemic and social relation (ER+SR+) and a fourth

designer (Nicholas or Nicole Neutral) weakly emphasises both relation (ER-SR-).

Table 12 below summarises the options displayed for learners:

Adviser Studios ER+ Strategies SR+ Strategies

Roger/Rachel Rules Knowledge Oriented Yes No

Christopher/ Christine Creative Knower Oriented No Yes

Alexander/Alexandra All Elite Oriented Yes Yes

Nicholas/ Nicole Neutral Relativist Oriented No No

Table 12: Types of design studios

28

Before choosing one adviser, learners will watch films in which each adviser

introduces themselves and presents their way of seeing design. The passage

illustrated in Table 13 is an extract from the screenplay of Roger Rules character.

Table 13: Screenplay example: Roger Rules passage

Roger Rules

“Hi, my name is Roger! I believe there is always a right way of doing things. I am a very practical kind of guy! I don’t like too much talking, I usually go straight to the point... but I will be very happy in helping you out to find the best solution for your design questions. People say I am very clever and skillful, but my brilliant ideas just come out of being methodical and careful in designing, and of course being interested in stuff and reading a lot. There is a lot of knowledge developed in design, so if you just follow the rules and procedures that have been tried and tested you are guaranteed to be successful.

I like doing puzzles, crosswords, following manuals and instructions, reading scientific magazines. I don’t like “creative” stuff, big parties, and people who talk about "feelings" all the time.”

Strategies to be followed may be similar in content, but each character or adviser

provides slightly different guidance, according to whether these are emphasising

epistemic or social relation. For instance, learners might be suggested to talk to

other museum visitors and explore their views of what features would be

essential in the design of a certain object. However, a learner who is being

guided by Roger Rules (ER+SR-) will be suggested a more methodical way of

approaching this task. Steps will be delineated and templates provided. On the

other hand, if the learner is actually being guided by Christopher Creative (ER-

SR+), a more subjective approach is used, encouraging the learner to explore

people’s feelings and his or her own dispositions toward a certain designed

object. Table 14 exemplifies how different strategies incorporate strong epistemic

or social relation.

29

ER+ Strategies SR+ Strategies

Define a set of questions to ask other museum visitors. (template to record information)

Ask others what style of OBJECT do they like? What do they feel is important when designing OBJECT?

Research different materials, shapes, heights index of general population. (template to record information)

Listen to designers opinions on http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/sydney2000games/interviews.php Podcasts and videos

Table 14: ER+ and SR+ strategies

7. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

This paper has presented a Bernsteinian approach to the development of the

research’s languages of description. We discussed and exemplified how

Bernstein’s concepts of Classification and Framing, and Maton’s concepts of

Legitimation Code Theory were employed in the research process, and used to

map the theory to the instruments used for data collection and the empirical data.

The paper discussed the use of these concepts within different methods:

interviews (qualitative), online survey (quantitative) and in the practical instance

of embedding concepts in the various layers of an e-learning environment,

including the narratives of characters in a screenplay. The paper examined the

lessons learned through the various pilot studies, its effects on the theoretical

understanding, and the approach used to overcome the problems we

encountered during the research process. The application of the concepts is

discussed within the investigation phase with an exploratory study to identify

perceptions of knowledge and identity within four design disciplines: engineering,

architecture, digital media and fashion. We also presented how the concepts are

30

being applied within the next phase of our research, with the development and

implementation of an e-learning environment to experience design.

This research is still ongoing. Results of the online survey are in the evaluative

phase and the e-learning environment is expected to be implemented and

evaluated in the near future.

References:

Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and control (Vol 3). Boston: Routledge & K.

Paul.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. London: Rowan

& Littlefield.

Botelho, A. & Morais, A. M. 2006. Students-exhibits interaction at a science

center. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 43: 987-1018.

Carvalho, L., & Dong, A. (2007). Knowledge and identity in the design field,

International Conference on Design Education (ConnectED 2007).

Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Lamont, A. & Maton, K. (in press, Nov 2008) Choosing music: Exploratory

studies into the low uptake of music GCSE, British Journal of Music

Education 23(3).

Maton, K. (2004). The wrong kind of knower: Education, expansion and the

epistemic device, in Muller, J., Davies, B., & Morais, A. (Eds.), Reading

Bernstein, Researching Bernstein. London: Routledge, pp. 218-231.

31

Maton, K. (2006). On knowledge structures and knower structures. In R. Moore,

M. Arnot, J. Beck and H. Daniels (Eds.), Bernstein: Policy, Knowledge and

Educational Research, London: Routledge, pp 44-59.

Morais, A. M. & Neves, I. 2001. Pedagogic social contexts: Studies for a

sociology of learning. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels

(Eds.), Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy. The Contribution of Basil

Bernstein to Research. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 185-221.

Rifa, M. & Hernandez, F. 1997. Exploring the relationship between knowledge

and power in the Spanish national curriculum for visual arts. International

Journal of Art & Design Education, 16(3): 273-279.

Powerhouse Museum (2008)

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/about/index.asp (accessed April 2008)

32