Abstract
This chapter reviews the published literature examining PISA data to derive three key insights on how cultural capital contributes to students’ academic achievement. The first insight provides support for the argument that cultural capital is a complex construct that can be measured using different indicators, that manifests in myriad ways in different societies, that have different influences on students’ learning, and that comprises both highbrow cultural consumption and parental familiarity with school evaluation standards and future job requirements. The second insight highlights the importance of understanding the relationships between cultural capital and students’ academic achievement in a nomological framework comprising cultural capital, habitus, and social fields. The third insight is that different cultural capital variables operate conjunctively, rather than separately, to influence students’ academic achievement. More specifically, they may be mutually reinforcing each other to engender synergy, exhibiting different patterns of association with students’ academic achievement depending on the profiles of students and their families, or compromising each other in their effects.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Acosta, S., & Hsu, H. Y. (2014). Shared academic values: Testing a model of the association between Hong Kong parents’ and adolescents’ perception of the general value of science and scientific literacy. Educational Studies, 40(2), 174–195.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). ‘Science capital’: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.
Aschbacher, P. R., Ing, M., & Tsai, S. (2013). Boosting student interest in science. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(2), 47–51.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2013). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: A 3-step approach using Mplus (Mplus Web Notes: No: 15). Retrieved March 11, 2019, from https://statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/AuxMixture_submitted_corrected_webnote.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Crosnoe, R., & Muller, C. (2014). Family socioeconomic status, peers, and the path to college. Social Problems, 61(4), 602–624.
Edgerton, J. D., Roberts, L. W., & Peter, T. (2013). Disparities in academic achievement: Assessing the role of habitus and practice. Social Indicators Research, 114, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0147-0.
Gauld, C. F., & Hukins, A. A. (1980). Scientific attitudes: A review. Studies in Science Education, 7, 129–161.
Giacquinta, J. B., Bauer, J. A., & Levin, J. E. (1993). Beyond technology’s promise: An examination of children’s educational computing at home. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartas, D. (2015). Patterns of parental involvement in selected OECD countries: Cross-national analyses of PISA. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.4.4.185.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts, and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.
Hvistendahl, R., & Roe, A. (2004). The literacy achievement of Norwegian minority students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 307–324.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major choices—gender, race/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2), 211–234.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literatureand its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362.
Selwyn, N. (2012). Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: The role of sociological theory. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 81–96.
Tan, C. Y. (2015). The contribution of cultural capital to students’ mathematics achievement in medium and high socioeconomic gradient economies. British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), 1050–1067.
Tan, C. Y. (2017). Do parental attitudes toward and expectations for their children’s education and future jobs matter for their children’s school achievement? British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1111–1130.
Tan, C. Y. (2018). Socioeconomic status, involvement practices, and student science achievement: Insights from a typology of home and school involvement patterns. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 899–924.
Tan, C. Y., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Information technology, mathematics achievement, and educational equity in developed economies. Educational Studies, 43(4), 371–390.
Tan, C. Y., & Hew, K. F. (2018). The impact of digital divides on student mathematics achievement in Confucian heritage cultures: A critical examination using PISA 2012 data. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq025.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tan, C.Y. (2020). Interrogating the Cultural Capital–Students’ Achievement Relationships. In: Family Cultural Capital and Student Achievement. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4491-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4491-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-4490-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-4491-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)