How can teaching make a difference to students’ interest in science? Including Bourdieuan field analysis
In this article we respond to the discussion by Alexandra Schindel Dimick regarding how the taste analysis presented in our feature article can be expanded within a Bourdieuan framework. Here we acknowledge the significance of field theory to introduce wider reflexivity on the kind of taste that is constituted in the science classroom, while we at the same time emphasize the importance of differentiating between how taste is reproduced versus how it is changed through teaching. The contribution of our methodology is mainly to offer the possibility to empirically analyze changes in this taste, and how teaching can make a difference in regard to students’ home backgrounds. However, our last two steps of our taste analysis include asking questions about how the taste developing in the classroom relates more widely in society. Schindel Dimick shows how these two steps can be productively expanded by a wider societal field analysis.
KeywordsInterest Taste Aesthetics Science education Situated learning Norms Values Methodology
- Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Anderhag, P., Emanuelsson, P., Wickman, P.-O., & Hamza, K. M. (2013). Students’ choice of post-compulsory science: In search of schools that compensate for the socio-economic background of their students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3141–3160. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.696738.
- Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Wickman, P.-O. (2014). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 145–163). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar