Bourdieu's notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum

Science Education

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 58-79

  Claussen, Stephanie ^a   Osborne, Jonathan ^b  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871270960     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21040     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. Adamuti-Trache, M., & Andres, L. (2008). Embarking on and persisting in scientific fields of study: Cultural capital, gender, and curriculum along the science pipeline. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1557-1584.
2. Aikenhead (1995). Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52.
3. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
5. Apple, M. (1979). Curriculum and ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J. F., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). "Doing" science versus "being" a scientist: Examining 10/11 year old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617-639.
7. Au, W. (2007). High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
8. Avvisati, F., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. p. (in press). Effective teaching for improving students' motivation, curiosity, and self-confidence in science: A comparative approach. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD.
9. Bauer, H. H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. C. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.
11. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.
12. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.C. (1979). The inheritors: French students and their relation to culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 1-18.
14. Brown, B., Brown, C., & Jayakumar, U. (2009). When cultures clash: Transposing a college going culture in an urban school. In W. R. Allen, E. Kimura-Walsh, & K. A. Griffin (Eds.), Towards a brighter tomorrow: College barriers, hopes and plans of Black, Latina/o and Asian American students in California. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
15. Brown, B., Revelles, J., & Kelly, G. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779-802.
16. Brown, B. A. (2006). "It isn't no slang that can be said about this stuff": Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96-126.
17. Brown, S. A. (1977). A review of the meanings of, and arguments for, integrated science. Studies in Science Education, 4(1), 3-62.
18. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868.
19. Claxton, G. (1991). Educating the inquiring mind: The challenge for school science. London: Wheatsheaf.
20. Cohen, I. B. (1952). The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society, 3, 67-101.
21. Collins, H. (2000). On beyond 2000. Studies in Science Education, 35, 169-173.
22. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming, again, again and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
23. Cyranoski, D., (2011). Education: The Ph.D. factory. Nature, 472, 276-279.
24. Dainton, F. S. (1968). The Dainton report: An inquiry into the flow of candidates into science and technology. London: HMSO.
25. Davies, F., & Greene, T. (1984). Reading for learning in the sciences. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.
26. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York; The New Press.
28. Donnelly, J. (1999). Interpreting differences: The educational aims of teachers of science and history, and their implications. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 17-41.
29. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
30. Eisner, E. (1992). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan.
31. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491-520.
32. Farkas, G. (2003). Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 541-562.
33. Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415-435.
34. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
35. Foskett, N., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (1997). Career perceptions and decision-making. Southampton, England: Centre for Research in Education Marketing, University of Southampton.
36. Harlen, W. (1999). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project. Speech given at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Kiel, Germany.
37. Harré, R. (1984). The philosophies of science: An introductory survey (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
38. Haywood, H. (1927). Fundamental laws of chemistry. School Science Review, 9(34), 92.
39. Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
40. Hirst, P. H., & Peters, R. S. (1970). The logic of education. London: Routledge.
41. Jacobs, J. E., & Simpkins, S. D. (Eds.). (2006). Leaks in the pipeline to math, science, and technology careers: New directions for child and adolescent development. New York: Wiley.
42. Jenkins, R. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge.
43. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
44. Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
45. Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1(3), 273-299.
46. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
47. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24-28.
48. Lowell, B. L., Salzman, H., Bernstein, H., & Henderson, E. (2009). Steady as she goes? Three generations of students through the science and engineering pipeline. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University.
49. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
50. Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 285-311.
51. Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2009). Choosing science: Understanding the declines in senior high school enrolments. University of New England, New South Wales, Australia: SiMERR National Centre.
52. MacPherson, A., & Osborne, J. F. (2012). There's more to science than recall. Paper presented at the Annual NARST Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
53. Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38.
54. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
55. Merzyn, G. (1987). The language of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 483-489.
56. Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499-1521.
57. Millar, R. (2007). Scientific literacy: Can the school curriculum deliver? In M. Claessen (Ed.), Communicating European research 2005 (pp. 145-150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
58. Millar, R., & Hunt, A. (2002). Science for public understanding: A different way to teach and learn science. School Science Review, 83(304), 35-42.
59. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
60. Montgomery, S. L. (1996). The scientific voice. New York: Guilford Press.
61. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
62. Munro, M., & Elsom, D. (2000). Choosing science at 16: The influences of science teachers and careers advisors on students' decisions about science subjects and science and technology careers. Cambridge, England: Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC).
63. National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm revisited. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
64. National Academy of Sciences: Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences.
65. National Research Council. (2008). Research on future skill demands. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
66. Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 599-613.
67. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
68. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
69. OECD. (2006). The PISA 2006 assessment framework for science, reading and mathematics. Paris: Author.
70. Ogura, Y. (2006). Graph of student attitude v atudent attainment. Based on data from Martin, M.O. et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International science report: Findings from IEA's report of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. National Institute for Educational Research: Tokyo.
71. Ormerod, M. B., & Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils' attitudes to science. Slough, England: NFER.
72. Osborne, J. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
73. Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils' and parents' views of the school science curriculum: A focus-group study. London: King's College.
74. Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-468.
75. Osborne, J. F., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
76. Paredes, M. (2011). Parent involvement as an instructional strategy: No more waiting for superman. Teachers College Record. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=16371.
77. Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.
78. Penney, K., Norris, S., Phillips, L., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of high school science textbooks. Canadian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3/4, 415-436.
79. Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co.
80. Romberg, T., Zarinnia, E. A., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers' perceptions. Madison, WI: National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education.
81. Roseberry, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61-94.
82. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report. Washington, DC: AAAS.
83. Rutherford, F. J., Holton, G., & Watson, F. G. (1970). Harvard project physics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
84. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (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.
85. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity construction-Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum (pp. 231-247). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
86. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of the discipline. Educational Record, 43, 197-205.
87. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
88. Simpson, J. (2004). The influence of subject choice on employment (personal communication). London.
89. Smith, M. L., Edelsky, C., Draper, K., Rottenberg, C., & Cherland, M. (1991). The role of testing in elementary schools: CSE technical report 321. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
90. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
91. Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450-452.
92. Spencer, H. (1884). What knowledge is of most worth. New York: J. B. Alden.
93. Stagg, P. (2007). Careers from science: An investigation for the science education forum. Warwick, England: Centre for Education and Industry, University of Warwick.
94. Stokking, K. M. (2000). Predicting the choice of physics in secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1261-1283.
95. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American sociological review, 51(2), 273-286.
96. Tai, R. H., Q. Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1145.
97. Tate, W. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1015-1028.
98. Tavernise, S. (2012). Education gap grows between rich and poor, studies say. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html?pagewanted=all.
99. Teitelbaum, M. (2007). Do we need more scientists and engineers? Paper presented at the National Value of Science Education, University of York, England.
100. Tesch, M., & Duit, R. (2004). Experiments in physics education-A video study. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10, 51-69.
101. Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
102. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigation the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
103. Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage.
104. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Sean Smith, P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
105. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. F. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
106. Willard, C. (1985). The science of values and the values of science. In J. Cox, M. Sillars, & G. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice: The fourth SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 435-444). Annadale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
107. Willems, K. (2007). Subject cultures and gender. Physics and German-Natural opposites? Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Verlag.
108. Wilson, M., & Bertenthal, M. (2005). Systems for state assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
109. Young, M. D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control. London: Collier-MacMillan.
110. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.