Re-thinking science capital: the role of 'capital' and 'identity' in mediating students' engagement with mathematically demanding programmes at university
Re-thinking science capital: the role of 'capital' and 'identity' in mediating students' engagement with mathematically demanding programmes at university
复制标题
重新思考科学资本：“资本”和“身份”在调节学生参与大学数学要求课程中的作用
DOI：
10.1093/teamat/hrw016
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Black L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Black L
大量文献强调，中学数学成绩高并不一定会激励学生在义务教育后的数学要求很高的课程中选择并取得成功。最近的生物科学项目（Archer等人（2015，J. Res. Sci.老师52，922-948））和在此之前的ASPIRES项目（Archer等人（2013，伦敦：国王学院））都强调，在塑造学生的抱负和他们在科学、技术、工程和数学方面的未来轨迹方面，获得科学资本可能比先前的成就更重要。在这篇文章中，我们批判性地分析了科学资本的概念及其在调解学生的选择和经验的数学要求在大学学习学位课程的作用。从TransMaths项目的数据，我们提出了两个案例-斯泰西和埃尔顿-谁都参加了同一个“数学物理”当然在university. We表明，虽然都讨论了获得科学资本在叙述他们的学位选择，他们这样做的方式不同，这总是与不同形式的标识与“数学物理”的相互作用。 因此，有必要对科学资本的概念进行重新界定，以便更充分地理论化科学资本的交换与使用价值之间的辩证关系。虽然一些学生可能会出于自身利益（交换价值）而将科学资本作为积累资本（例如资格）的一种手段，但其他学生似乎认识到科学学习和知识的“使用价值”，这会产生不同形式的参与科学（和数学）。因此，我们认为，以STEM身份的名义创作自己在调解人们如何看待科学资本方面至关重要。最后，我们认为，数学应该是这个框架的核心部分，因为它大大有助于科学作为一种资本形式的交换价值（特别是物理学），但它也提供了科学劳动的使用价值（例如，在建模科学问题）。
A wide body of literature has highlighted how high achievement in mathematics in secondary school does not necessarily motivate students to both choose and succeed on mathematically demanding programmes at post-compulsory level. The recent Enterprising Science project (Archer et al. (2015, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52, 922–948)) and before that, the ASPIRES project (Archer et al. (2013, London: Kings College)), have both highlighted that access to science capital is perhaps more important than prior achievement in shaping students’ aspirations and their future trajectories in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. In this article, we critically analyse the notion of science capital and its role in mediating students’ choice of and experience of studying mathematically demanding degree programmes at university. Drawing on data from the TransMaths project, we present two cases—Stacey and Elton—who are both enrolled on the same ‘Mathematics for Physics’ course at university. We show that although both discuss access to science capital in narrating their choice of degree, they do so in different ways and this invariably interplays with different forms of identification with ‘Mathematics for Physics’. We conclude that there is a need to re-conceptualize science capital so that the dialectic relationship between its exchange and use value is theorized more fully. Whilst some students may access science capital as a means to accumulate capital (e.g. qualifications) for its own sake (exchange value), others appear to recognize the ‘use value’ of science learning and knowledge and this produces different forms of engagement with science (and mathematics). We therefore argue that authoring oneself in the name of a STEM identity is crucial in mediating how one perceives science capital. Finally, we argue that mathematics should be a central part of this framework since it significantly contributes to the exchange value of science as a form of capital (especially Physics), but it also offers use value in scientific labour (e.g. in modelling scientific problems).