Professional Documents
Culture Documents
We Are Textbook Badnekais!' A Bernsteinian Analysis of Textbook Culture in Science Classrooms Vijaysimha
We Are Textbook Badnekais!' A Bernsteinian Analysis of Textbook Culture in Science Classrooms Vijaysimha
We Are Textbook Badnekais!' A Bernsteinian Analysis of Textbook Culture in Science Classrooms Vijaysimha
Classrooms
Indira Vijaysimha
Abstract
This article is an empirical study of science teaching practices using
a Bernsteinian framework. It provides a comparative analysis through
ethnographic examination of pedagogic recontextualisation in different
school types—government, private unaided and international. Bernstein
drew attention to the process of pedagogic recontextualisation and
pointed out two interacting fields within it—the official recontextu-
alisation field (ORF) and the pedagogic recontextualisation field (PRF).
This article examines the textbook culture that is found in most of the
schools and argues that it arises from the PRF. The differences in the
pedagogic discourse within science classrooms are shown to arise from
the interactions between the ORF, the PRF and the school context. The
relative strengths of classification and framing within the pedagogic dis-
course is one of the key variants across the different types of schools.
Control over students was highest in government schools, present to a
lesser extent in the private school and least visible in the international
school, indicating that poor children were perceived as requiring more
disciplining. Poor children were also constructed as passive and prob-
ably unwilling/undeserving recipients of worthwhile knowledge, whereas
affluent children were seen as capable of discursively constructing this
knowledge. The knowledge to be transmitted within the government
schools was kept distinct from everyday knowledge, thus indicating
Keywords
Science teaching, Bernstein, textbook culture, pedagogic recontextualisation
field, pedagogic discourse, classification, framing, teaching practices, teachers,
culture
Introduction
Teaching in India has been described as textbook centred and rote based
(Clarke, 2001; Kumar, 1986, 1988; Rao et al., 2003; Sarangapani, 2003).
Kumar (1988) traces the origin of the ‘textbook culture’ of teaching to
India’s historic colonial roots. In their ethnographic studies, Clarke
(2001) and Sarangapani (2003) draw upon prevailing cultural notions to
explain their observations of teachers’ roles and practices in the class-
room. The present article is an empirical study of science teaching prac-
tices using a Bernsteinian framework. It provides a comparative analysis
of the pedagogical practices in four different school types and is based
on ethnographic fieldwork.
Teaching practices across the different types of schools had many
commonalities, thus supporting the analyses and findings of previous
research studies (Clarke, 2001; Sarangapani, 2003) that teaching prac-
tices are, to a great extent, derived from culture. However, the differ-
ences in teaching practices across schools when analysed through a
Bernsteinian framework made possible a more nuanced understanding
that took into account the class belonging of teachers and students and
their interactions with the curricula followed in different schools.
By presenting the similarities in certain aspects of teachers’ work
across the different types of schools, this article argues that the stability/
reform resistance of teaching practices is due to the relative autonomy of
teachers who are the agents for the pedagogic recontextualisation of
knowledge. The equally evident differences in teaching practices across
school types are shown to be the result of triangular interactions between
Theoretical Framework
Basil Bernstein’s (2000) notion of education as a field in which knowl-
edge is recontextualised formed the theoretical framework for analysis.
The pedagogic device is a conceptual idea through which Bernstein
attempts to relate the realms of knowledge production, pedagogic recon-
textualisation and meaning acquisition. In the case of schools, the peda-
gogic device regulates the production of the school curriculum and its
transmission. The grammar of the pedagogic device is mediated through
three interrelated and hierarchical rules: distribution rules, recontextual-
ising rules and evaluation rules.
Distribution rules distribute different forms of knowledge to different
social groups, thus determining who has access to what knowledge and
under what conditions. Distribution rules give rise to recontextualising
rules that regulate the formation of a specific pedagogic discourse.
Recontextualising rules construct the official knowledge, and the ‘what’
(classification) and ‘how’ (framing) of pedagogic discourse. They give
rise to evaluative rules that condense the meaning of the whole peda-
gogic device by providing the criteria that establish what counts as legiti-
mate knowledge. In education, this is largely achieved through assessment
processes. Recontextualising rules regulate not only the selection,
sequence, pace and relations with other subjects, but also the theory of
instruction from which the transmission rules are derived (Bernstein,
1990, p. 185).
Recontextualisation is influenced by two recontextualisation fields.
Through the official recontextualising field (ORF), the state and its
selected agents and ministries operate at a generative level to legitimise
the official school curriculum and its content. The ORF, in the Indian
context, is generated by the departments of education at the centre and in
the states, the National Council of Educational Research and Training
(NCERT), the Directorate of State Education Research and Training and
The term ‘textbook culture’ signifies not only this control on ‘products of
learning’ but also includes the regulating effect of textbooks on what tran-
spires within the classroom between teachers and pupils and on the process of
learning itself. The words ‘control’ and ‘regulate’ seem to suggest an external
top-down imposition or coercions. (Sarangapani, 2003, p. 124)
In the present analysis, the textbook culture is seen as one of the forces
generating the PRF, the other forces being teacher beliefs, colleges of
teacher education/training and the textbooks themselves (Figure 1).
According to Bernstein, the pedagogic discourse (PD) consists of
the instructional discourse (ID) that is embedded within the regulatory
discourse (RD). The RD includes classification and framing; and the
ID is based on the different teaching methods/strategies used by the
teachers.
PRF
ORF Teachers’
PD (culture, beliefs)
DoE, NCERT,
ID/RD Teacher training
School Boards
Classification NCTE
SCERT/DSERT
& framing
Evaluation Textbooks/ guides
Teaching (Pvt. Publishers)
repertoire
Inspection • CDs (compact
discs)
• tutorials
based formed part of my doctoral research study. The school sites cho-
sen for the study were:
Gayatri: Imagine that you are holding a current-carrying wire in your (raised
pitch, pause) right hand (emphasis). Which hand? (pause)
Chorus: Right hand.
Gayatri: The thumb should point in the direction of (raised pitch, pause) the
current. (Repeats) In which direction should the thumb point?
Chorus: Current.
Gayatri: The direction of the fingers around the wire will give the direction of
the magnetic lines of force around the wire. The magnetic lines of force will
be in the direction of the fingers round the wire. In which direction will the
magnetic lines of force be?
Chorus: The direction of the fingers round the wire.
Gayatri: Instead of the conductor being straight, it is (pause) circular. Instead
of the conductor being straight, it is? (rising tone) (pause).
Chorus: Circular.
Gayatri: The magnetic field will be (pause) inside (emphasis). Where will the
magnetic field be? (pause).
Chorus: Inside.
Shanta (reading out from the textbook, which she held very close to her eyes):
There are three types of elements: (pause) metals, non-metals and inert gases
(emphasis). How many types of elements? (pause)
Students (chorus): Three.
Shanta: Who discovered the atom (emphasis) (pause)? English scientist John
Dalton (emphasis). Who? (pause)
Students (chorus): John Dalton.
Shanta: John Dalton is from England (emphasis). Where is John Dalton
from? (pause)
Once again, the ‘teachering device’ was in evidence in the way Shanta
used her tone of voice to emphasise the parts that had to be remembered
and in the way she used questioning as a way of getting children to repeat
key information from the lesson.
The short extract presented next is from a biology lesson at GB.
Unlike the teachers at GA and GB, the teachers at PU did not read out
the textbook in the classroom and instead allocated more time for explain-
ing the content, but the pedagogy was essentially the same. There was a
greater degree of student participation compared to the government schools.
Teachers introduced the chapter to be studied by questioning students and
talking about the content to be taught. In the following episode, from PU,
the teacher allowed students to ask questions and used the ‘teachering
device’ to redirect their attention to content that had to be memorised.
Boy: When you said that electrons revolve round [the] nucleus, that time all
electrons will have [the] same speed, sir?
Shivraj: Ah yes, atoms can gain or lose (pause) electrons (emphasis).
Naturally, we know [the] electron is (pause) negative (emphasis); negatively
charged atoms are (pause) anions (emphasis), positively charged atoms are
(pause) cations (emphasis).
Shivraj left the question about the electron speeds unanswered, while
using the ‘teachering device’ to draw the students’ attention and to
emphasise what was important for students to remember.
This lesson extract shows how the ‘teachering device’ functions to
narrowly frame the knowledge that is to be transmitted and reproduced.
Clearly, the teacher is using the ‘teachering device’ to redirect the stu-
dents’ attention away from a line of questioning that is not relevant to the
content that needs to be transmitted. However, the question raised by the
student is interesting and had the teacher responded even partially, it
could have led to a deeper understanding about atomic structure.
Science Teaching in PI
Teachers used a wider range of teaching strategies at PI as compared to
the other schools. However, some of the teachers like Kaveri and Meena,
both of whom taught the CISCE sections in the school, followed a teach-
ing style more or less like the one followed by teachers in the KSEEB
schools. The following is an extract from a chemistry lesson taught to
Class IX by Meena.
the students seated. There was silence and the students settled down in
their seats.
Meena: ‘Last class we did (simultaneously wrote on the board) P-one
V-one over T-one is equal to P-two, V-two over T-two. I derived it.’
On the board:
‘P1 V1/ T1 = P2 V2/ T2’
Boy 1 (quiet voice): ‘I didn’t understand.’
Meena verbalised this derivation rapidly. She wrote down the three
equations dealing with change of volume with pressure, change of vol-
ume with temperature and change of pressure with temperature, and then
combined the equations algebraically to arrive at the relationship she had
just mentioned.
Boy 1: ‘If P-one V-one over T-one equals P-two V-two over T-two, then
P-three V-three... (interrupted by teacher).’
Meena: ‘Yes, obvious. (pause) One minute, Rohit. What is standard tempera-
ture and pressure? (pause)’
Meena gave the example of hydrogen gas being produced by the reac-
tion of zinc with hydrochloric acid, and then explained standard tem-
perature and pressure.
Boy 1: For any substance, if we multiply P-one V-one, it will be the same?
Meena: Yes.
Boy 1: For all substances?
Meena: No, of a (emphasis) substance.
In this class, Meena attempted to use the ‘teachering device’, but the
students did not reciprocate by responding as expected. They felt free to
question the teacher, unlike the students in the other schools. One reason
for this was the prevailing pedagogic discourse of the school that allowed
students to actively raise questions in the classroom. The other reason for
this was their class background, as several teachers had spoken about
how students coming from affluent families had been brought up to be
assertive and confident in their interactions with adults.
The following extract is from a lesson taught by a team of two teachers.
Bindu: ‘One thing we forgot to tell you (pause)—please write down—is that
(pause) fibre also prevents cancer. When you all laugh about constipation,
remember it is a serious thing.’
Sheela: ‘Write down.’
Bindu wrote on the blackboard the sentence that the children were to copy.
Sheela: ‘Class, look this side. There is an extra point for homework; so car-
bohydrate visuals are due next week.’
Sheela wrote on the board: ‘Carbohydrate visuals are due next week’.
After this, the students moved to a carpeted area and sat down in a loose
circle for a more interactive discussion about food and food groups and
talked about their parents’ food preferences and calorie consciousness.
Sheela read out an article from a magazine about food myths, and the
students asked several questions. The teachers, too, asked the students
questions, at times directing a question towards a particular student to
monitor whether the student was paying attention to the discussion.
The two phases of this lesson were clearly distinguished by the seat-
ing arrangement. For the discussion phase, when students did not have to
write things down, they sat on the carpet, whereas when the teacher
wanted the class to note down specific points in writing, the students
were at their desks. Unlike the practice in the private school, the note
taking did not follow the discussion, but rather the other way round. The
textbook was not used in this lesson.
In another lesson that was also taught by the two teachers, there was
a reference to a ‘mind-map’ about a topic on tiger conservation that the
students had done earlier, and a lot of discussion took place on the basis
of the previous work done by the students on their ‘mind-maps’. Presented
next is a brief extract from a lesson that involved nearly 60 minutes of
lively discussion.
Sharada: ‘Next’.
The girl read another sentence and Sharada read the last phrase of the
sentence along with the girl. Sharada again rephrased the sentence by
way of explanation and then asked a boy to copy out the diagram of the
generator on the blackboard.
Sharada: ‘Next’.
The girl read another sentence.
Potentially, any text could be treated in this manner, and Shanta and
Vijaya explicitly said that there was no significant difference in the way
they taught science or any other subject. According to them, only the
content to be transmitted differed according to the subject. Science dealt
with phenomena that could be observed in the present, whereas history
dealt with the past. The next extract from a mathematics lesson for Class
IX at GA indicated that even a mathematics lesson followed the same
instructional strategy for teaching from the textbook.
Sharada: ‘How do we find the square roots of one-digit numbers? First write
the number like this—it is shown in your textbook.’
Students: First find the nearest perfect square less than the number.
Sharada: It is...
Students: It is 4.
Sharada: First we will write (pause) 2, then we have to write (pause) 4 under
7 and (pause) subtract it (as she wrote on the board). We get? (pause)
Students: 3. We must put point and write two zeroes and bring down the zeroes.
Sharada: Yes, then we double the 2 and write 4 here (she wrote on the
blackboard).
Sharada then wrote the first worked-out example from the textbook
on the board, with the students verbalising the steps. Since these steps
had already been covered, Sharada then proceeded to show the steps for
calculating the square root of a two-digit number and then for a three-
digit number. After writing out two more examples on the board, she told
the students to copy the examples from their textbooks. The examples on
the board were the same as those in the textbook.
In PU, the students were well versed in when and how the textbook was
to be used. The class leaders invariably kept track of the exact point where
the previous class had left off, or of the number of questions and answers
that the teacher had dictated. With the exception of a single teacher, Arati,
the other teachers did not have to explicitly direct the students in the use
of the textbook during the class. They expected students not to open the
books during the introductory or explanatory phase of the lesson and
clearly indicated when students were to copy down questions from the
textbook. Answers to the questions were invariably written on the board
for the students to copy, and did not require students to use the textbook.
In PI, teaching involved different activities such as project work, dis-
cussion and mind-mapping. However, in cases where the textbook was
used during the teaching, teachers preferred to direct the use of it by
students in a very explicit manner. The following extract shows how
Kaveri, while teaching biology to Class IX students, attempted to regu-
late precisely what a student must be doing while using the textbook.
Kaveri: Have I finished? Put your hands down. Raghav, you are reading. I
know what you are doing. You are reading. If you lift sentences from the book
I will get angry. I have read the book. I want you to look at the diagram and
relate what you [have] learnt about protista (pause).
Kaveri explicitly directed what the students were to do with the text-
book in the class. She wanted them to look at the diagram of the organ-
ism ‘hydra’ in the textbook and notice its morphological features. She
did not want students to read the descriptions of these features given in
the textbook. She told students that she would be able to know whether
they were reading from the textbook by their use of sentences that were
identical to those given in the textbook. She claimed to know precisely
what was written in the textbook and thus identify sentences that were
‘lifted’ from the textbook by a student answering her questions. The fol-
lowing extract from a lesson taught by Maya at PI also indicates control
of students’ textbook usage.
This would help the students later as they would be required to do this dur-
ing the examinations. She wanted the students to identify the stages of cell
division from the diagram correctly, without looking at the information
given in the textbook, and had therefore instructed the students to fold the
textbook in such a manner as to allow them to see and copy the diagrams,
but not read the information presented in the textbook.
The tendency to direct students’ use of textbooks was noticed in all the
schools. Teachers gave explicit instructions for the use of textbooks
within the classroom and preferred to control the flow of information.
They did not expect students to read the textbooks and process informa-
tion for themselves. In the case of the government high school class-
rooms where teachers had the students read out from the textbook, they
invariably paraphrased the text. The implicit belief here was that as teach-
ers, their role was to mediate between the textbook and the student.
Both Clarke and Kumar seem to imply that the official pedagogic
discourse as articulated through the textbook was the only discourse.
However, Sarangapani (2003) showed that regulation and control also
occurred independently of the ORF constituted by the textbook and the
system of examination. Regulation and control could also occur from the
inside by ‘becoming a part of the ideational framework from which
teachers and children derive and interpret their classroom activities in
the form of beliefs about knowledge, knowing what knowledge is worth
knowing, and the image of the “educated man”’ (Sarangapani, 2003, p.
124). The interaction between Maya and the students at PI shows that
teachers and students may not always share the same ideational frame-
work and that this could lead to a disruption in the PRF.
A predominant goal of all the teachers was to finish ‘portions’ of the
prescribed syllabus and they would therefore often curtail the introduc-
tion-cum-explanation phase of the lesson in order to allow for the other
two phases of the lesson, namely, note giving and revision. The goal of
finishing a fixed number of lessons within a given time frame constrained
the instructional styles and methods used by the teachers.
In the government schools, there was less explicit regulation of stu-
dents’ use of the textbook in the classroom compared with the other
schools. Teachers started the lesson directly by reading out from the text-
book or asked students to read out while they rephrased and emphasised
relevant portions of the textbook. They also controlled the pace of reading
by asking the student who was reading aloud to stop at certain points.
When asked about their reasons for controlling textbook use in the
classroom, the responses of government schoolteachers differed from
those of teachers in PU and PI.
At GA, Vimala justified the use of textbooks in class thus:
I know in science we are not supposed to read the textbook in the class, but I
ask them to read. They will not have the time or [the] inclination to read once
they are at home, no one to care. May be they even have to go for work. So I
ask them to read aloud for a bit. We cannot use what we learnt in B.Ed. Here,
heavy strength. I adapt to the situation.
enough if they memorised the questions and answers given in the form
of notes by the teacher. In a science class, if a student was asked to read
aloud from the textbook, it was a single student who did this, and the
main task of the other students was to listen to the teacher’s paraphrasing
of the text and to respond to the questions asked.
At the private school, students in Classes VII, VIII and IX were highly
conversant with textbook-based teaching and knew without explicit
instruction that during the elucidation phase of the lesson, they were not
expected to take out their textbooks or notebooks. Teachers had put in
place well-established classroom routines for the different phases of the
lessons, and students were clear that they were expected not to refer to
their textbooks during the explanatory phase of the lesson unless explic-
itly told to do so by the teacher.
Some students sitting at the periphery of the classroom craned their heads
to see, while some others were plainly indifferent to what was being
shown.
Vijaya: ‘Can you all see?’
Students (chorus): ‘Yes’.
She held up caricatures of the past chief ministers of the state, all 18 of
them.
After moving swiftly down the list of chief ministers, Vijaya proceeded
to read about the Vidhana Soudha from the newspaper.
Having finished with the newspapers, Vijaya folded and put them
away and made the links to the lesson in the Kannada textbook. The
lesson was in the form of a letter from a sister to her younger brother,
describing her visit to a famous place in the state.
This episode indicated how the ‘teachering device’ was used by Vijaya
to recontextualise information from the newspapers for presentation to
her students. The process used was similar to that employed for present-
ing textbook information in the class.
While acknowledging this, the present study shows that all teachers con-
trolled the flow of information from the textbook to the student within
the classroom.
The way in which Vijaya used non-textbook material in the classroom
indicated that the method of teaching with the help of a textbook had
been extended to the presentation of other material as well. The text was
never handed over to the students to be read at their own individual pace,
and the information was selected and presented by the teacher in the
familiar form. Even when students were in physical possession of the
textbook, the teacher, more or less, sought to control how the students
should interact with the textbook and at what pace and at what time. The
pedagogical method used to transact the lessons in a textbook in this case
could be said to have extended to other texts as well. Adherence to this
method probably explained the teachers’ dependence on the textbook
(or on any other authoritative text from which knowledge was to be
This study, thus, indicates how the PRF has an effect on the pedagogic
discourse in the classroom and points to the relative autonomy of
teachers.
Mead (1942) once proposed a contrast between ‘learning cultures’
and ‘teaching cultures’. According to Mead, learning cultures can be
observed in a small, homogeneous group that shows little concern for
transmitting culture because there is virtually no danger of anyone going
astray. Teaching cultures may be found in a society that regards it as
imperative that those who know should inform and direct those who do
not know. In India, the teaching culture has a long history in the form of
the guru–shishya tradition, which can be traced back to Vedic times.
Here the teacher is cast as a guru, a religious and spiritual knower/teacher
(Sarangapani, 2003, p. 112).
The textbook culture can be said to be a recasting of the already prev-
alent teaching culture, where the colonial rulers took on the mantle of
those who know and set out to ‘teach’ those who do not know, namely,
the subjects of the colonial state. The epistemic authority of the teacher
was eroded in this process, and from being an authority unto himself, the
teacher became a transmitter of knowledge that was determined by the
state as being worthy of transmission. The textbook came to represent
the authoritative version of the official knowledge that was to be trans-
mitted as accurately as possible. The criterion for the acquisition of this
knowledge was the ability to reproduce this knowledge, verbally in
response to the teacher’s questions in the classroom and then, in the form
of writing during examinations.
In the context of the schools affiliated to the KSEEB, GA, GB and
PU, the knowledge to be transmitted within the school was kept distinct
from the everyday knowledge present outside the school, and both clas-
sification and framing were strong. Gayatri (GA) explicitly acknowl-
edged this separation while discussing the practical knowledge possessed
by some of the students who did the work of winding transformers and
her own ‘textbook knowledge’ about transformers. She said, ‘The boys
know things in practical ways. We are textbook badnekais!’ In another
instance at PU, which is illustrative of this type of classification between
school knowledge and everyday knowledge, Shantala ignored the exam-
ple given by a student when he mentioned the melting of ghee11 in the
context of changes brought about by heat.
Notes
1. Badnekai means brinjal, or eggplant or aubergine. The sentence was spoken
by a government schoolteacher to indicate her dependence on textbooks.
2. Retrieved on 8 August 2007, from http://www.kar.nic.in/sslc
3. CISCE is a private, non-governmental board of school education in India.
It conducts two examinations in India: the Indian Certificate of Secondary
Education (ICSE) and the Indian School Certificate (ISC). The CISCE was
set up in 1956 at the meeting of the Inter-State Board for Anglo-Indian
Education when a proposal was adopted for the setting up of an Indian
Council to administer the University of Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate’s Examinations in India. It is an all-India but not a government-
sponsored board (unlike the Central Board of Secondary Education [CBSE]
and the National Institute of Open Schooling [NIOS]). It is based in New
Delhi.
4. This is the world’s largest provider of international education programmes
and qualifications for 5–19 year olds. Their qualifications are taken in over
160 countries and recognised by universities, education providers and
employers across the world. The CIE is part of the Cambridge Assessment
Group, a not-for-profit organisation and a department of the University of
Cambridge.
5. The state of Karnataka allowed certain schools to follow curricula developed
by national and/or international agencies by granting them a No Objection
Certificate (NOC). The NOC allowed these schools to bypass the regulatory
mechanisms of the state in terms of the curriculum to be followed. In the
case of the international school, the ORF was therefore not constituted by the
state of Karnataka.
6. The roman numeral indicates the class or grade of the class.
7. The names of teachers have been changed to maintain confidentiality.
8. Italics have been used to indicate instances where the original speech was in
Kannada and where the text is a translation.
9. Maya was referring to the endangered frog species, Rana tigrina, and
encouraging the students to think about why the tiger (Panthera tigris) was
more emblematic of endangered wildlife.
10. According to Bernstein, there are two types of language codes: restricted
code and elaborated code. Elaborated code is more explicit and spells things
out in more detail, thus making it easier for the listener to understand what is
being said.
11. Shantala asked the students to give examples of changes brought about by
heating. A boy cited the melting of ghee, clarified butter.
References
Bernstein, B.B. (1990). Class, codes and control, Vol. 4. The structure of
pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
———. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research,
critique. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Clarke, P. (2001). Teaching and learning: The culture of pedagogy. New Delhi:
SAGE.
Kingdon, G. (1996). The quality and efficiency of private and public education:
A case study of urban India. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
58(1), 57–82.
Kumar, K. (1986). Textbooks and educational culture. Economic and Political
Weekly, 21(30), 1309–1311.
———. (1988). Origins of India’s ‘textbook culture’. Comparative Education
Review, 32(4), 452–464.
Mead, M. (1942). Educative effects of social environment as disclosed by studies
of primitive societies. Symposium on Environment and Education, University
of Chicago Human Development Series, I(54), 48–61.
Morais, A.M. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559–569.
Morais, A.M., & Antunes, H. (1994). Students’ differential text production in
the regulative context of the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 15(2), 243–263.
Rao, N., Cheng, K.M., & Narain, K. (2003). Primary schooling in China and
India: Understanding how socio-contextual factors moderate the role of the
state. International Review of Education, 49(1–2), 153–176.
Sarangapani, P.M. (2003). Constructing school knowledge: An ethnography of
learning in an Indian village. New Delhi: SAGE.