Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 221–239 | Cite as

Structural exclusion through school mathematics: using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice

Article

Abstract

In this paper, we explore a sociological approach to mathematics education and offer a theoretical lens through which we can come to understand mathematics education as part of a wider set of social practices. Many studies of children’s experiences in school show that a child’s academic success is a product of many factors, some of which are beyond the control and, sometimes, the knowledge of the classroom teacher. We draw on the sociological ideas of Pierre Bourdieu to frame our analysis of the environment in which the pupils learn and the ways in which the practices help to create parallel worlds which are structured quite differently inside and outside the classroom. Specifically, we use Bourdieu’s notions of habitus, field and capital. Using two cases, we highlight the subtle and coercive ways in which the practices of the field of mathematics education allow greater or lesser access to the hegemonic knowledge known as school mathematics depending on the cultural backgrounds and dispositions of the learners. We examine the children’s mathematical learning trajectories and reflect on how what they achieve in the future will, in all likelihood, be shaped by their social background and how compatible this is with the current educational climate.

Keywords

Bourdieu Sociology Equity Habitus Field Capital 

References

  1. Adkins, L. (2004). Reflexivity: Freedom or habit of gender? In L. Adkins & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 191–210). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Apple, M. (1979). Ideology and the curriculum. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apple, M. (2000). Mathematical reform through conservative modernisation? Standards, markets and inequality in education. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–242). Westport: Alex.Google Scholar
  4. Atweh, B., Bleicher, R., & Cooper, T. (1998). The construction of social context of mathematics classroom: A sociolinguistic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). My school. Retrieved from http://www.myschool.edu.au/. Accessed 1 Feb 2013.
  6. Bell, J. (2003). Beyond the school gates: The influence of school neighbourhood on the relative progress of pupils. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Vol. 1. Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Boaler, J. (1997a). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boaler, J. (1997b). Setting, social class and the survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 575–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1972). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Algeria 1960: The disenchantment of the world, the sense of humour, the Kabyle house of the world reversed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1983). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. (M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J., & de Saint Martin, M. (1994). Academic discourse. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, B. (2001). Social class and ‘real-life’ mathematical assessments. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 245–258). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  20. Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (2000). Assessing children’s mathematical knowledge: Social class, sex and problem-solving. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. De Carvalho, M. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics education: Mathematical myths, pedagogic texts. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gates, P. (2001). What is an/at issue in mathematics education. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 7–20). London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grenfell, M. (1998). Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  25. Griller, R. (1996). The return of the subject? The methodology of Pierre Bourdieu. Critical Sociology, 22(3), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms (1989th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Hurley, C. (2005). What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment? British Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lupton, R. (2004, January). Do poor neighbourhoods mean poor schools? Paper presented at the Education and the Neighbourhood Conference, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Mahar, C., Harker, R., & Wilkes, C. (1990). The basic theoretical position. In R. Harker, C. Mahar, & C. Wilkes (Eds.), An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory (pp. 1–25). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nolan, K. (2012). Dispositions in the field: Viewing mathematics teacher education through the lens of Bourdieu’s social field theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, P., Janick, T., & Swing, S. (1981). Ability/treatment interaction effects on children’s learning in large group or small group approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 452–474.Google Scholar
  32. Power, S., Halpin, D., & Fitz, J. (1994). Underpinning choice and diversity? In S. Tomlinson (Ed.), Educational reform and its consequences (pp. 13–25). London: IPPR/Rivers Oram Press.Google Scholar
  33. Thomson, P. (2002). Schooling the rustbelt kids: Making the difference in changing times. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Wacquant, L. (1989). Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7, 26–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Walkerdine, V., & Lucey, H. (1989). Democracy in the kitchen? Regulating mothers and socialising daughters. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  37. Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education: A review of recent research on parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. Review of Research in Education, 22, 3–47.Google Scholar
  38. Zevenbergen, R. (2000). ‘Cracking the code’ of mathematics classrooms: School success as a function of linguistic, social and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching (pp. 201–224). Westport: Alex.Google Scholar
  39. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Language, social class and underachievement in school mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 38–50). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  40. Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Streaming mathematics classrooms: A Bourdieuian analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(3), 5–10.Google Scholar
  41. Zevenbergen, R. (2005). The construction of a mathematical habitus: Implications of ability grouping in the middle years. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.The University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Nottinghamshire Local AuthorityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations