British Journal of Sociology of Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Power and control in science: a case study of a

syllabus for science and technology

Edith R. Dempster

To cite this article: Edith R. Dempster (2020): Power and control in science: a case study
of a syllabus for science and technology, British Journal of Sociology of Education, DOI:
10.1080/01425692.2020.1852071

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1852071

Published online: 30 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbse20
British Journal of Sociology of Education
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1852071

Power and control in science: a case study of a syllabus for

science and technology
Edith R. Dempster
School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article explores the recontextualization of science in the Malawi Received 6 May 2020
Standard 6 syllabus for science and technology. It illustrates how rela- Accepted 13 November 2020
tions of power and social control are enacted, using Bernstein’s concepts
of classification and vertical and horizontal discourse. The syllabus incor-
porates five ‘disciplines’: science, technology, health, housecraft and KEYWORDS
marketing. Integration of science and non-science content weakens Recontextualisation;
inter-disciplinary boundaries. Horizontal discourse is more prevalent developing country; social
than vertical discourse, further weakening access to powerful knowl- control; classification;
edge inherent in science. Horizontal discourse is particularly evident in vertical discourse;
housecraft, much of which appears more relevant to future employ- horizontal discourse
ment than to everyday life in Malawi. Indigenous or local knowledge is
validated through its inclusion in the syllabus. The syllabus illustrates
Bernstein’s concerns about the adverse effects of including horizontal
discourse into vertical discourse, thereby limiting opportunities for
social mobility. The article ends by questioning the relevance of
Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device for developing countries.

Introduction
Throughout the forty years of his research, renowned sociologist of education, Basil
Bernstein attempted to understand how schooling can be used, intentionally or inadver-
tently, to perpetuate social inequalities through relations of power and social control (Singh
2002). The central concept of Bernstein’s theory is the pedagogic device, which refers to the
principles, or collection of rules and procedures whereby knowledge is converted into a
form suitable for school (Singh 2002; Tsatsaroni, Ravanis, and Falaga 2003). The pedagogic
device is socially determined (Tsatsaroni, Ravanis, and Falaga 2003), i.e. it is influenced by
human bias or beliefs and enacts relations of power and social control that the state or other
governing body wishes to promote (Singh 2017). Bernstein developed his theory of the
pedagogic device in the context of privileging of middle-class over working-class cultures
in Britain but other researchers have shown how the pedagogic device expressed through
science syllabus and/or pedagogy potentially denies social mobility in first and third world
countries (Neves and Morais 2001; Tsatsaroni, Ravanis, and Falaga 2003; O’Halloran 2007;
Sikoyo and Jacklin 2009; Johnson, Dempster, and Hugo 2011).

CONTACT Edith R. Dempster dempstere@ukzn.ac.za

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. R. DEMPSTER

The pedagogic device is realised through the pedagogic discourse, which is a principle
for recontextualising other discourses for the purposes of pedagogic communication (Singh
2002; Tsatsaroni, Ravanis, and Falaga 2003). The pedagogic discourse consists of three
fields: production, where knowledge is produced; recontextualization, where knowledge is
selected and converted to a form suitable for age and stage of schooling; and production,
which is the site of teaching and learning (Maton 2014). The present study is concerned
with the field of recontextualization, which is a site of struggle between different agencies,
including state departments of education, curriculum authorities and sites of teacher edu-
cation (Singh 2002, 2017). Agents of recontextualization determine what knowledge is
worth knowing, who will facilitate knowledge acquisition, how it will be taught, to what
level of proficiency and at what stage of cognitive and physical development (Singh 2017).
Recontextualization is subject to distributive logics which privilege certain social groups in
terms of access to knowledge and practice in the field of production and the field of repro-
duction (Maton 2014). Distributive logics ‘determine who gets to claim/know/learn/do
what?’ (Maton 2014, 52). The agents responsible for distributive logics therefore have the
power to influence existing social relations in a society. The present study focusses on
recontextualization as illustrated by the syllabus for science and technology in the sixth
year of schooling in a developing country, Malawi.

Horizontal and vertical discourses

Bernstein theorized the distinction between school knowledge and everyday knowledge as
vertical and horizontal discourses respectively (Singh 2017; Hordern 2017). A horizontal
discourse relates to the everyday or mundane world, whereas a vertical discourse relates to
the esoteric or specialist world (Bernstein 1999; Young and Muller 2016). Horizontal dis-
course is often oral, local and/or context-dependent, based on informal experience (Hordern
2017). Bernstein (1999) emphasized that horizontal discourse is segmentally organised,
meaning that units of knowledge are unrelated to each other. Horizontal discourse has no
integrating principles binding one segment to another and it varies across social groups or
classes. It cannot realise abstract generalisations because it is so closely tied to context.
Vertical discourse, by contrast, is a coherent, explicit and systematically principled struc-
ture which is organised hierarchically in the sciences (Bernstein 1999). It is also known as
‘school knowledge’ or specialist knowledge (Young and Muller 2016). The field of production
of vertical discourse is specialist communities such as scientific research, literary and artistic
organisations (Singh 2002). Hierarchical knowledge structures progress from knowledge
of particulars towards increasing complexity and abstractness (Young and Muller 2016).
Because hierarchical knowledge leads to generalizations and access to formal academic
discourse, vertical discourse is characterised as powerful knowledge (Young and Muller
2016). It promotes social equity.
Notwithstanding the argument that vertical discourse is more powerful than horizontal
discourse, curriculum policies that promote everyday knowledge are popular. Sikoyo and
Jacklin (2009) refer to such curricula as ‘contextualised’ curricula, since they attempt to
bridge the divide between everyday life and school knowledge. Bernstein (1999) expressed
concern about the inclusion of segments of horizontal discourse in the powerful vertical
discourse of school subjects during the process of recontextualization. He cites two ways
in which this happens: the first is by inserting horizontal discourse to promote access to
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 3

vertical discourse. Bernstein’s view was that insertion of horizontal discourse may obscure
the vertical discourse and it is generally characteristic of education for the ‘less able’.
However, using everyday knowledge as an entry point to specialist concepts is in keeping
with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development which guides much of educational practice
currently (Young and Muller 2016). In the early years of primary science study, using every-
day knowledge as an entry point to specialist knowledge is an accepted and acceptable
practice but requires skilled teachers to successfully integrate the two discourses. Generalist
primary school teachers may include too much everyday knowledge at the expense of
specialist knowledge (Cross, Mungadi, and Rouhani 2002), a problem that Bernstein referred
to as colonisation of specialist knowledge by everyday knowledge (Singh 2017). Studies in
Uganda (Sikoyo and Jacklin 2009) and Greece (Tsatsaroni, Ravanis, and Falaga 2003) illus-
trate how difficult it is for generalist primary and pre-primary teachers to avoid privileging
either everyday or specialist discourse in science.
The second way in which horizontal discourse is inserted into vertical discourse is by
the inclusion of topics designed to improve students’ ability to solve problems in their
everyday lives, such as health education, parenting, vocationally-oriented topics and domes-
tic tasks. Bernstein criticized this practice because it marginalises vertical discourse to ‘a
set of strategies to become resources for allegedly improving the effectiveness of the reper-
toires made available in the horizontal discourse’ (Bernstein 1999, 169). There is a further
motive to incorporating problem-solving topics in science which is to counter the perceived
hegemony of so-called Western science. Legitimating everyday or local knowledge in school
science gives voice to marginalised social groups (Bernstein 1999). Such knowledge has
value in particular contexts, but does not lead to generalizable principles. The effect is to
diminish the power of science to access knowledge of the powerful (Young and Muller 2016).

Knowledge selection in primary science syllabus

A study of recontextualization requires the researcher to examine how a school subject
is constructed internally and how it relates to other parts of the curriculum (Tsatsaroni,
Ravanis, and Falaga 2003). Decisions must be taken about what disciplines to include
in a school subject according to age, stage of schooling and context within which the
curriculum is enacted. Young and Muller (2016) argue that disciplines have evolved over
time into stable socio-epistemic forms. Disciplinary knowledge involves ‘sets of system-
atically related concepts and methods for their empirical exploration’ (68). The social
realist approach promotes maintenance of boundaries between science disciplines and
between sciences and humanities (Young and Muller 2016), referred to by Hoadley
(2007) as inter-disciplinary relations. Strong boundaries are evident when knowledge
domains are distinct and progressive in a syllabus, i.e. the syllabus is strongly classified
(Hoadley 2007). Where disciplines are blended, such as in themes, the syllabus is
described as weakly classified (Hoadley 2007). A second type of boundary is that between
specialist and everyday knowledge, referred to as inter-discursive relations (Hoadley
2007), because it refers to the distinction between vertical and horizontal discourse.
Strong classification applies to school subjects that distinguish clearly between specialist
and everyday knowledge, while weakly classified subjects blend specialist and everyday
knowledges.
4 E. R. DEMPSTER

At primary school level, disciplines are often integrated with other disciplines and with
everyday knowledge thereby blurring the boundaries between disciplines, resulting in weak
classification. Studies of primary science syllabus in countries with a history of high per-
formance have found that most include topics related to living things, matter and energy,
i.e. topics derived from the disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics (Schmidt, Wang,
and McKnight 2005; Ruddock and Sainsbury 2008; Hollins and Reiss 2016). ‘High-
performing’ is defined as high performance in Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study and/or Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results.
Earth Science, Earth in Space and Technology are included in some curricula (Hollins and
Reiss 2016). Content was organised by themes or discipline, although the parent disciplines
(biology, physics, chemistry) were rarely identified. Science was commonly integrated with
other subjects, i.e. there was weak inter-disciplinary classification. As students progressed
through the primary phase, science emerged as a separate subject but continued to integrate
the individual disciplines of science.
A social realist approach favours strong classification as it provides access to powerful
knowledge (Young and Muller 2016). Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight (2005) agree, stating
that science syllabus should be specified and sequenced to reflect the structure of the under-
lying discipline. How this is achieved in primary science syllabus is not elaborated. The
difficulties of constructing primary science syllabus are described by Wellington and Ireson
(2012) as follows:
No other subject has to cope with such a range of situations, with such a conceptually dif-
ficult subject and with a group of learners who bring all kinds of prior learning and precon-
ceptions to it (3).

Children come to formal school science with a set of intuitive explanations for natural
phenomena. The purpose of science in the primary school is to encourage children to
critically examine their intuitive explanations and replace them with scientific conceptions
(Bentley and Watts 1994). Science encourages children to develop curiosity and habits of
thinking that search for rational explanations for the natural world (Wellington and
Ireson 2012).
Osborne (2007) and Harlen (2018) argue that science education is critical to full partic-
ipation in the 21st century. Scientific knowledge is ‘knowledge of the powerful’, that is, those
who have more power in society (Young and Muller 2016). The question for writers of
science syllabus is what form it should take. Harlen (2018) suggests that citizens of the 21st
century need to understand major ideas and principles of science, how the ideas were
reached, and how enduring they are. The following list proposes what should be included
in a balanced science syllabus for primary school:

• Knowledge of basic facts and concepts in science; explanations of why things happen
the way they do; use of theories and models in explanations.
• Knowledge of how investigations are conducted in science.
• Knowledge of the nature of science and technology, the relationships between science
and technology, and the social and environmental contexts of science and technology.
• Development of attitudes that support responsible acquisition and application of sci-
entific and technological knowledge to the mutual benefit of self, society and the
environment (Wellington and Ireson 2012; Harlen 2018).
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 5

Beyond these general principles, there is little agreement on the selection of content for
primary science syllabus (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight 2005; Ruddock and Sainsbury
2008; Hollins and Reiss 2016), Where previous studies have compared content selection
for science syllabus in high-performing countries the present study focuses on the recon-
textualization of science for primary school in a developing country, Malawi. The study
examines how horizontal and vertical discourse are incorporated into the Science and
Technology syllabus for Standard 6 in Malawi. The purpose of the study was to interrogate
how relations of power and social control are realized in this syllabus. The context of Malawi
must first be understood.

Malawi
Malawi is a Sub-Saharan African country, a former British colony which gained indepen-
dence in 1964 (Chirwa and Naidoo 2014). In 2018, its Human Development Index (HDI)
was 0.485, placing it at position 172 out of 189 countries surveyed by the United Nations
Development Program (United Nations Human Development Program 2019). In 2019,
Malawi’s HDI had increased by 60% from 0.303 in 1990. This was due to increased life
expectancy, increase in mean years of experienced schooling and expected years of school-
ing. In 2019, the average Malawian student experienced 4.6 years of schooling out of 11 years
available. Standard 6 is the sixth year of schooling, in which students are generally between
11 and 13 years old.
Gross National Income per capita was $1159, placing Malawi well below the average of
$3443 for Sub-Saharan Africa (United Nations Human Development Program 2019). It is
one of the poorest countries in the world. The GINI coefficient, which is an indicator of
inequality in income within a country, is estimated to be 46.1 in 2020, as compared with a
GINI coefficient of 62.5 in South Africa and 33.0 in Ethiopia (World Population Review 2020).
The school curriculum has been revised three times since independence. The most recent
reform was the Primary Curriculum and Assessment Reform which was first implemented
in 2001 (Chirwa and Naidoo 2014), the second edition being issued in 2019 (Malawi
Institute of Education 2019). The 2019 edition was used in the present study.

Methods
The Primary School syllabus for Science and technology, Standard 6 was analysed in this
study (Malawi Institute of Education 2019). The intentions of the whole curriculum are
listed in the developmental outcomes (p. vii) and the rationale (p. 1) gives the specific
intentions of the subject science and technology. Vertical and horizontal discourse were
identified in the developmental outcomes, rationale and core elements and their outcomes.
The prescribed content is listed in tabular form on pages 2–34 of the syllabus. Column
headings are Assessment standards, Success criteria, Theme/topic, Suggested teaching
and learning activities, Suggested teaching, learning and assessment methods and
Suggested teaching and learning resources. Themes/topics gave an indication of the selec-
tion of content included in the syllabus. Success criteria specify what learners must be
able to do to demonstrate that they have achieved the assessment standards. The success
criteria, in conjunction with suggested teaching and learning activities, were the main
units of analysis in this study.
6 E. R. DEMPSTER

Selection of content
To analyse the selection of content for the syllabus, success criteria were allocated to an
overarching common knowledge area. The knowledge areas were:
Science – content related specifically to scientific method, biology or physical sciences.
Technology – content associated with processing, machinery and information technology.
Health – content related to nutrition, hygiene and safety.
Housecraft – content related to domestic chores.
Marketing – content related to selling products.

Horizontal and vertical discourse

To analyse the use of horizontal and vertical discourse, each success criterion was allocated
to one of the following categories:
Vertical discourse (VD) – ‘school’ science using specialist knowledge aligned to the
disciplines of science or technology.
Horizontal discourse (HD) – everyday or ‘common-sense’ knowledge that is local, con-
text-specific and segmentally organized.
Horizontal discourse used to access vertical discourse (HD→VD), in which everyday
knowledge inducts students into specialist knowledge.
Vertical discourse applied to solving problems in everyday life (VD→HD), in which con-
ceptual knowledge derived from vertical discourse generates useful and practical knowledge.
The number of success criteria assigned to each code was counted and presented in the
findings.

Findings
Purpose and structure of the curriculum
Malawi’s curriculum aims to equip students ‘with a basic understanding of science and
technology’ and to acquire ‘skills, values and attitudes to live a healthy life, survive socially
and economically and have a desire for lifelong learning’ (Malawi Institute of Education
2019, iv). This statement is important for understanding choices made in the selection of
content for the science and technology syllabus. The curriculum is described as an out-
comes-based curriculum. This is described as ‘….learners are asked to make sense of new
knowledge in the context of their existing knowledge’ (Malawi Institute of Education 2019,
vii). The curriculum measures learning by the achievement of prescribed outcomes relating
to knowledge, skills, values and attitudes.
The highest level of outcomes is the developmental outcomes, which are a set of eight general
statements about what the learner should be able to do at the end of primary school (Standard
8). Two developmental outcomes pertain to science and technology. One outcome pertains to
using science and technology for problem-solving and the other pertains to health education.
The outcomes for primary school are derived from the developmental outcomes. Thus
the developmental outcomes inform the selection of content for each learning area so that
learners will have achieved all eight developmental outcomes by the end of primary school-
ing. Outcomes are provided for each of six learning areas in Standard 6. The learning area
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 7

Science and Technology is structured around six core elements, with a primary outcome for
each core element. The core elements and their primary outcomes for Science and
Technology are shown in Table 1.

Content selection evident in the core elements, primary outcomes and themes/topics
The core elements shown in Table 1 give an indication of the conceptualization of science
and technology in the curriculum. Core element a) mentions scientific knowledge, skills
and attitudes, which are characteristic of the field of science. Core element b) involves the
procedures of investigation in science. All the other core elements are applications of science
or technology. The primary outcomes for core elements d), e) and f) refer to agriculture,
which is not included in the Standard 6 Science and Technology syllabus.
Each core element has a number of themes/topics associated with it. The themes/topics
give an indication of content areas that have been selected for science and technology. Core
elements and their themes/topics are shown in Table 2.
The themes/topics for core elements a) and b) are recognizable as scientific conceptual
and procedural knowledge, with the exception of common accidents in core element b).
Food preservation and machines in core element c) and information and communication
technologies in core element f) are recognizable as technology. Thus eight of the 21 themes/
topics provide opportunities for vertical discourse in science and technology. The remaining
13 themes/topics relate to everyday life or non-science topics.

Horizontal and vertical discourse in the core elements and primary outcomes
Primary outcomes shown in Table 1 represent a combination of specialist knowledge and
its relationship to everyday life. The strongest indication of vertical (specialist) discourse

Table 1. Core elements and primary outcomes of Science and Technology in Malawi
Standard 6 syllabus (Malawi Institute of Education 2019, 1).
Primary outcome
Core element The learner will be able to …
a. Basic scientific knowledge, skills Understand and apply scientific knowledge, skills and attitudes
and attitudes to solve everyday problems and provide a base for further
learning.
b. Scientific investigation for Investigate relationships, identify and solve practical problems
application in science and technology.
c. Knowledge for development Interpret and apply scientific and technological knowledge
with ethical responsibility for the environment as well as to
make improvements in the quality of life and develop a
respect for vocational work.
d. Nutrition and health Demonstrate an understanding of the interrelationship
between agriculture in homes, communities and the world.
e. Marketing Apply scientific and technological understanding of production,
use and marketing processes in agriculture and other
economic activities in order to increase local productivity
and contribute to the market economy of the country.
f. Managing change Understand, innovate and manage scientific and technological
changes in all contexts with particular reference to
agriculture in Malawi.
Words underlined indicate specialist knowledge, italics indicate application to everyday life.
8 E. R. DEMPSTER

Table 2. Themes/topics allocated to core elements in Science and Technology Standard 6 (Malawi
Institute of Education 2019, 2–34).
Core element Themes/topics
a. Basic scientific knowledge, skills and attitudes Human skeleton and movement
Sense organs
Common accidents
External parts of plants
Light energy
Heat energy
Sound energy
States of matter
b. Scientific investigation for application Scientific investigations
c. Knowledge for development Food preservation
Machines
Care for different rooms in a home and its surroundings
Laundry
Improving the home and its surroundings
d. Nutrition and health Nutritional deficiency diseases
Methods of cooking
Kitchen hygiene and safety
Meal planning and presentation
Packed meals
e. Marketing Materials production
f. Managing change Information and communication technologies

is included in the primary outcome for the core element Basic scientific knowledge, skills
and attitudes. ‘Learners are required to demonstrate an understanding of scientific knowl-
edge, skills and attitudes to …. provide a base for further learning’. Vertical discourse was
identified in four core elements, and its application to everyday or working life was identified
in all six core elements. Application of conceptual knowledge in everyday life is clearly
prioritized in the developmental outcomes for primary school and the primary outcomes
of the Science and Technology syllabus.

Assessment standards and success criteria

The primary outcome of each core element is assessed by means of assessment standards.
Assessment standards are written in the format ‘We will know this when the learners are
able to: ….’. Each individual assessment standard relates to the themes/topics selected for
the core element. There are 19 assessment standards altogether. Success criteria provide
more detail about what learners must be able to do to indicate that they have achieved each
assessment standard. For example, the assessment standard for the primary outcome asso-
ciated with core element b) shown in Table 1 is ‘We will know this when the learners are
able to conduct scientific investigations’. The success criteria for this assessment standard
state that learners must be able to:

1. Plan scientific investigations

2. Conduct scientific investigations.

The 52 success criteria provide more detail about the content selected for the science
and technology syllabus. Success criteria were assigned to knowledge areas that most closely
matched their content. The knowledge areas defined in the methods were science,
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 9

Figure 1. Percentage of success criteria (n = 52) assigned to knowledge areas in the Malawi Standard 6
science and technology syllabus.

technology, health, housecraft and marketing. Housecraft was distinguished from health
in that it was everyday knowledge that was not underpinned by conceptual knowledge,
whereas health was everyday knowledge that was underpinned by some conceptual knowl-
edge. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 1.
Science constituted 32.7% of the success criteria. Physical Science (15.4%) and Biology
(13.5%) were roughly evenly weighted, while scientific investigations constituted 3.8% of
the success criteria. The themes/topics for core elements a) and b) shown in Table 2 were
included in science, with the exception of common accidents.
Health contributed 26.9% of the success criteria. Health included hygiene and safety in
the kitchen, accidents at home and first aid, nutritional diseases, and preparing nutritious
meals, including packed lunches. Most of these topics were found in core element d) in Table
2. Technology accounted for 21.2% of the success criteria. Topics included in Technology
were food processing for preservation, machines and how they work, using materials to make
household products, and information and communication technology. Topics assigned to
technology were found in core elements c), e) and f) in Table 2. Housecraft comprised 17.3%
of the success criteria. It included methods of cooking, cleaning the home, doing laundry,
and improving the home. These topics were included in core elements c) and d) in Table 2.
One success criterion related to marketing products was located in core element e) in Table 2.
The subject science and technology as conceptualized in the Malawian syllabus of 2019
includes many success criteria (44.2% of the total success criteria) grouped under health
and housecraft here, aimed at solving problems arising in students’ everyday lives or as
preparation for work. Examples of problem-solving in everyday life are identifying common
accidents in the home and community and identifying causes, signs and symptoms of
kwashiorkor and marasmus. Improving the home refers to traditional homes with suggested
teaching activities including construction of a mud stove, drying rack (thandala) and soak
pit. Some teaching activities are related to everyday life but could also be preparation for
10 E. R. DEMPSTER

work. Examples are methods of cooking, meal planning and presentation, and improving
the home with reference to soft furnishings and planting flowers. Teaching activities that
appear to be predominantly preparation for future work are care of the sitting and dining
room and doing the laundry (specifically laundering table linen).

Horizontal and vertical discourse in the success criteria

Results of the analysis of horizontal and vertical discourse in the success criteria are shown
in Figure 2.
The weighting of horizontal and vertical discourse was similar, with 32.7% of the success
criteria assigned to horizontal discourse and 28.8% assigned to vertical discourse. Examples
of horizontal discourse are ‘clean the home surroundings’, ‘launder table linen’, ‘describe
kitchen hygiene and safety’, ‘identify common accidents in the home and community’.
Examples of vertical discourse are ‘explain the functions of external parts of the plant’;
‘describe the human sense organs’; ‘explain how different types of food are preserved’.
Vertical discourse was applied to everyday life in 30.8% of the success criteria. Examples
are ‘explain the advantages and disadvantages of information and communication tech-
nologies’, ‘describe the process of making selected materials, e.g. shoe polish, soap, crayons’,
‘state factors to consider when planning nutritious meals for the family’, ‘describe uses of
light energy’. Four success criteria (7.7%) were instances where everyday knowledge was
used to access vertical discourse, e.g. ‘identify sources of heat energy’; ‘identify some
simple machines’. This is an acceptable use of horizontal discourse at primary school level.
Horizontal discourse related to local knowledge was identified in two success criteria.
One was food preservation, where teaching activities included indigenous types of food
preservation technologies, explaining how they work, and preserving food using sun drying,
smoking and salting. The second example related to improving the home, where

Figure 2. Percentage of success criteria (n = 52) assigned to each category of discourse in the Malawi
Standard 6 science and technology syllabus.
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 11

improvements to a traditional home are suggested as a teaching activity. The improvements

include a mud stove, drying rack and soak pit.
In total, 36.5% of the success criteria promoted the development of specialist knowledge
(vertical discourse), while 63.5% promoted knowledge for everyday use (horizontal discourse).

Discussion
Content selection in the Malawi Standard 6 science and technology learning area is consistent
with the purpose of the school curriculum, providing a basic understanding of science and
technology in addition to acquiring skills for healthy living and economic survival. It is also
consistent with the developmental outcomes of primary schooling, which prioritise prob-
lem-solving in everyday life and health education. Content selection is partially aligned with the
primary outcomes of science and technology, which also emphasize applications to everyday life.
The learning area science and technology includes knowledge of some basic facts and
concepts and knowledge of how investigations are conducted, as recommended by
Wellington and Ireson (2012) and Harlen (2018). It omits knowledge of the nature of science
but places great emphasis on application of scientific and technological knowledge for the
benefit of self and society. Since science and technology includes a range of themes/topics
from science, technology, health, housecraft and marketing, inter-disciplinary boundaries
(Hoadley 2007) are blurred. Two core elements are recognizable as science, while the
remaining five contain a mixture of disciplines, including some content that falls outside
the boundaries of science or technology. Classification is therefore weak.
A large proportion of content in science and technology fits the description of horizontal
discourse or vertical discourse applied to horizontal discourse. Inter-discursive boundaries
(Hoadley 2007) are blurred, in keeping with the purpose and developmental outcomes of the
curriculum. Vertical discourse includes topics drawn from biology, physical sciences and tech-
nology as was the case in some high-performing countries (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight
2005; Ruddock and Sainsbury 2008; Hollins and Reiss 2016). The emphasis placed on hori-
zontal discourse is consistent with Bernstein’s (1999) description of the appropriation of vertical
discourse by horizontal discourse. Bernstein (1999) cited health, work, parenting and domestic
skills as examples of horizontal discourse inserted into vertical discourse for the purpose of
improving students’ ability to cope with their everyday lives. The Malawian Standard 6 science
and technology syllabus contains three of Bernstein’s examples: health, work and domestic skills.
The Malawian science and technology syllabus also illustrates Bernstein’s (1999) example
of the use of horizontal discourse to combat ‘elitism and alleged authoritarianism of vertical
discourse’ (169). Local knowledge is inserted through indigenous methods of food preser-
vation and home improvements. Such local knowledge in a science syllabus fails to allow
access to generalizable principles which is characteristic of specialist, powerful knowledge
(Young and Muller 2016).
The effect of weak classification is to reduce the power of science and technology (Young
and Muller 2016). Students are denied opportunities for social mobility through the dilution
of science with unrelated content. The rationale for inclusion of substantial content classified
here as health and housecraft may enact the general purpose of the curriculum to educate
students to live a healthy life and to survive economically. Topics related to health appear to
be intended to prepare students for living a healthy life since they focus on nutrition, hygiene
and dealing with accidents. These are relevant knowledge and skills for everyday life in
Malawi which fit the description of contextualized knowledge (Sikoyo and Jacklin 2009).
12 E. R. DEMPSTER

The topics related to housecraft and marketing are somewhat related to everyday life but
also prepare students for domestic work, e.g. cooking, cleaning the sitting and dining room
and laundering table linen. The specific choice of sitting and dining rooms, table linen,
home furnishings and planting flowers are themselves elitist and reminiscent of a colonial
past. Marketing is also preparation for future work. The inclusion of housecraft in a syllabus
for science and technology raises issues of social control (Singh 2017). The agents of recon-
textualization could have been influenced by a desire to improve domestic and personal
hygiene of Malawians or they assume that many students will become domestic workers in
large homes. Domestic and Personal Hygiene was a subject in the primary school curriculum
from 1973 to 1985, thereafter health was integrated with science from 1985 to 1995. Home
Economics was a subject in the primary school curriculum from 1973 to 1995 (Chirwa,
Naidoo, and Chirwa 2014). It is possible that the content of those two subjects was integrated
into science and technology with the 2001 reform.
The distributive logic (Maton 2014) of the Malawian Standard 6 syllabus privileges the
majority of children who do not proceed beyond primary school. The syllabus prepares
students for future work and to live a healthy life but pays scant attention to preparation
for further study in science. A similar situation was observed in the Ugandan primary school
science syllabus, which prioritises relevance of science to everyday life rather than vertical
progression of scientific concepts (Sikoyo and Jacklin 2009). The Ugandan science syllabus
is weakly classified, incorporating science, health, environmental, population and family
life education and adopting a thematic approach. The Kenyan science syllabus for primary
school is also weakly classified, integrating agriculture, health and technology into science
(Dempster 2020). This is quite unlike the science syllabus of high-performing countries,
mostly located in Asia and Europe, where science disciplines are often integrated into themes
(Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight 2005; Ruddock and Sainsbury 2008; Hollins and Reiss
2016), but vertical discourse predominates (Dempster 2020).
Although Malawi’s Standard 6 science syllabus fails to adequately provide access to
the knowledge of the powerful or powerful knowledge (Young and Muller 2016), it
provides useful knowledge for everyday life and living in a poor country where few
students progress beyond primary school. This raises questions about the suitability of
Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device in third-world countries. Malawi’s syllabus
represents much of what Bernstein (1999) and Young and Muller (2016) identify as
barriers to social mobility because students lack access to the powerful knowledge
embedded in science. However, the reality in third-world countries is that many primary
school teachers lack the specialist knowledge required to successfully teach science. This
is illustrated in Uganda, where many of the generalist primary school teachers studied
had difficulty negotiating boundaries between horizontal and vertical discourse in sci-
ence (Sikoyo and Jacklin 2009). The social realist vision of equality of opportunity
through access to powerful knowledge may be unattainable in developing countries.
Improved health, hygiene and everyday living conditions may be more appropriate in
current social conditions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest.
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 13

References
Bentley, D., and M. Watts. 1994. Primary Science and Technology: Practical Alternatives. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Bernstein, B. 1999. “Vertical and Horizontal Discourses: An Essay.” British Journal of Sociology of
Education 20 (2): 157–173. doi:10.1080/01425699995380.
Chirwa, G. and D. Naidoo. 2014. “Curriculum Change and Development in Malawi: A Historical
Overview.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5: 336–345. doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.
v5n16p336.
Cross, M., R. Mungadi, and S. Rouhani. 2002. “From Policy to Practice: Curriculum Reform in South
African Education.” Comparative Education 38 (2): 171–187. doi:10.1080/03050060220140566.
Dempster, E. R. 2020. “What Knowledge Is Worth Knowing? A Bernsteinian Analysis of Higher
Primary Science Curricula in Contrasting Socioeconomic Contexts.” Science & Education 29 (5):
1177–1200. doi:10.1007/s11191-020-00153-3.
Harlen, W. 2018. The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools. 7th ed. Oxon: Routledge.
Hoadley, U. 2007. “The Reproduction of Social Class Inequalities through Mathematics Pedagogies
in South African Primary Schools.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 39 (6): 679–706. doi:10.1080/
00220270701261169.
Hollins, M., and M. J. Reiss. 2016. “A Review of the School Science Curricula in Eleven High-Achieving
Jurisdictions.” The Curriculum Journal 27 (1): 80–94. doi:10.1080/09585176.2016.1147968.
Hordern, J. 2017. “Bernstein’s Sociology of Knowledge and Education(al) Studies.” In Knowledge
and the Study of Education: An International Exploration, edited by G. Whitty and J. Furlong,
191–210. Didcot: Symposium Books.
Johnson, K., E. Dempster, and W. Hugo. 2011. “Exploring the Recontextualization of Biology in the
South African Life Sciences Curriculum, 1996-2009.” Journal of Education 52: 27–57.
Malawi Institute of Education. 2019. Malawi Primary School Syllabus for Science and Technology
Standard 6. Domasi: Malawi Institute of Education.
Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Neves, I., and A. Morais. 2001. “Knowledge and Values in Science Syllabuses: A Sociological Study of
Education Reforms.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 22 (4): 531–556. doi:10.1080/
01425690120094476.
O’Halloran, K. 2007. “Mathematical and Scientific Forms of Knowledge: A Systemic Functional
Multimodal Grammatical Approach.” In Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: functional Linguistic
and Sociological Perspectives, edited by F. Christie and J. R. Martin, 205–236. London: Continuum.
Osborne, J. 2007. “Science Education for the Twenty First Century.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education 3: 173–184.
Ruddock, G., and M. Sainsbury. 2008. Comparison of the Core Primary Curriculum in England to
Those of Other High Performing Countries. Research Report DCSF-RW048. National Foundation
for Educational Research.
Schmidt, W. H., H. C. Wang, and C. M. McKnight. 2005. “Curriculum Coherence: An Examination
of U.S. mathematics and Science Content Standards from an International Perspective.” Journal
of Curriculum Studies 37 (5): 525–559. doi:10.1080/0022027042000294682.
Sikoyo, L. N., and H. Jacklin. 2009. “Exploring the Boundary between School Science and Everyday
Knowledge in Primary School Pedagogic Practices.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 30
(6): 713–726. doi:10.1080/01425690903235235.
Singh, P. 2002. “Pedagogising Knowledge: Bernstein’s Theory of the Pedagogic Device.” British
Journal of Sociology of Education 23 (4): 571–582. doi:10.1080/0142569022000038422.
Singh, P. 2017. “Pedagogic Governance: Theorising with/after Bernstein.” British Journal of Sociology
of Education 38 (2): 144–163. doi:10.1080/01425692.2015.1081052.
Tsatsaroni, A., K. Ravanis, and A. Falaga. 2003. “Studying the Recontextualization of Science in Pre-
School Classrooms: Drawing on Bernstein’s Insights into Teaching and Learning Practices.”
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 1 (4): 385–417. doi:10.1007/s10763-
005-1049-2.
14 E. R. DEMPSTER

United Nations Human Development Program. 2019. “Inequalities in Human Development in the
21st Century, Malawi.” Human Development Report. Downloaded 26-04-2020 from http://hdr.
undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/MWI.pdf
Wellington, J., and G. Ireson. 2012. Science Learning, Science Teaching. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.
World Population Review. 2020. “Gini Coefficient by Country Population.” Downloaded 26-04-202
from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/gini-coefficient-by-country
Young, M., and J. Muller. 2016. Curriculum and the Specialization of Knowledge. Oxon: Routledge.