| Literature DB >> 34934236 |
Jeffery Quaye1, David Pomeroy2.
Abstract
Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of social and cultural reproduction, this article utilizes the conceptual tools of habitus and cultural capital to examine intergenerational inequalities in attitudes towards mathematics and mathematics learning in three secondary schools in England. Data from 1079 students aged 14-16 included mathematics achievement, survey measures of attitudes towards mathematics, perceived parental attitudes towards mathematics, newly developed scales for cultural capital and habitus, and social class. There was a very strong relationship between student's attitudes towards mathematics and students' perceptions of their parents' attitudes towards mathematics. Middle-class students reported more positive attitudes towards mathematics, more positive perceived parental attitudes towards mathematics, and had higher mathematics achievement than working-class students. Cultural capital had a significant positive effect on students' attitudes towards mathematics but a minor effect on their achievement in mathematics. However, cultural capital's effect on students' attitudes and achievement in mathematics faded when habitus was included in the model. We suggest that habitus may play a more central role than cultural capital in the reproduction of mathematics inequalities. School quality had a modest but significant impact on mathematics outcomes in this study, so we argue that challenges to mathematics inequalities will require changes both within and outside of mathematics classrooms. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10649-021-10078-5.Entities:
Keywords: Attitudes towards mathematics; Bourdieu; Cultural capital; England; Habitus; Social class
Year: 2021 PMID: 34934236 PMCID: PMC8240077 DOI: 10.1007/s10649-021-10078-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Educ Stud Math ISSN: 0013-1954
Fig. 1Perceived parental attitudes towards mathematics mean scores by social class. Note: Number of working-class students = 832, number of middle-class students = 256, total N = 1079
Fig. 2Students’ attitudes towards mathematics mean scores by social class. Note: The minimum score is 40 and the maximum is 200. Number of working-class students = 832, number of middle-class students = 256, total N = 1079
Fig. 3Cultural capital indices mean scores by social class. Note: The minimum score is 9 and the maximum is 45. Number of working-class students = 832, number of middle-class students = 256, total N = 1079
Fig. 4Habitus indices mean scores by social class. Note: The maximum item score is 3
Correlation matrix for key study variables
| Variable | AIM | Student ATM | Parental ATM | Cultural capital | Social class | Habitus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIM | .205*** ( | .226** ( | .093** ( | .148*** ( | .130*** ( | |
| Student ATM | .631*** ( | .116*** ( | .119*** ( | .342*** ( | ||
| Parental ATM | .08** ( | .166*** ( | .243*** ( | |||
| Cultural capital | .0533 ( | .117*** ( | ||||
| Social class | .0798** ( |
Notes. * p < .05, **p < .01, and *** p < .001. N ranges from 1011 to 1079 due to occasional missing data. Bonferroni adjustment used for the p value
Test of between-subjects effects for students’ ATM
| Source | Effect size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 5841.77 | .000 | .921 |
| Cultural capital | 34 | 1.01 | .456 | .064 |
| Habitus | 28 | 2.69 | .000 | .131 |
| Cultural capital x habitus | 232 | 1.06 | .297 | .330 |
| Error | 500 |
Note. Effect size = η2 or partial η2
Test of between-subjects effects for achievement in mathematics (AIM)
| Source | Effect size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 646.83 | .000 | .564 |
| Cultural capital | 34 | 1.36 | .089 | .085 |
| Habitus | 28 | 1.71 | .014 | .087 |
| Cultural capital x habitus | 232 | 0.97 | .608 | .310 |
| Error | 500 |
Note. Effect size = η2 or partial η2
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting students’ achievement in mathematics
| Predictor variables | β | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | |||
| Gender | 1.18 | .08 | 2.65** |
| Ethnicity | .30 | .12 | 4.00*** |
| Social class | 1.94 | .12 | 3.73*** |
| Model 2 | |||
| Gender | 1.48 | .10 | 3.38** |
| Ethnicity | .17 | .07 | 2.15* |
| Social class | 1.50 | .09 | 2.92** |
| School type | .90 | .11 | 3.25** |
| Students’ ATM | .05 | .18 | 5.71*** |
| Model 3 | |||
| Gender | 1.71 | .12 | 3.82*** |
| Ethnicity | .17 | .07 | 2.18* |
| Social class | 1.44 | .09 | 2.81** |
| School type | .77 | .09 | 2.78** |
| Students’ ATM | .04 | .15 | 4.64*** |
| Cultural capital | .05 | .04 | 1.27 |
| Habitus | .14 | .09 | 2.87** |
Note. R = .038 for Model 1, p < .001; RΔ = .041 for Model 2, p < .001; total R = .79, p < .001; RΔ = .07 for Model 3, p < .005; total R = .089. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001