BİLİM SERMAYESİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN FEN EĞİTİMİNDE EŞİTSİZLİK

Year 2022, , 7 - 21, 31.12.2022

Elif Güven Demir

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı fen eğitimindeki eşitsizlikleri bilim sermayesi perspektifinden incelemektir. Alanyazındaki eğitimde eşitsizliğe ilişkin birikim, diğer alanlarda olduğu gibi cinsiyet, sosyal sınıf ve etnik kökene dayalı eşitsizlikleri işaret etmektedir. Bilim sermayesi yaklaşımı, öğrencilerin içinde bulundukları sosyal grupla bağlantılı olarak fen öğrenme sürecini geliştirme noktasında sahip oldukları kaynakları ve bunların dağılımını ifade etmektedir. Bilim sermayesi, öğrencilerin okul içi ve okul dışı fen öğrenme süreçlerine katılımını, fen bilimleri alanındaki kariyer hedeflerini ve bilim kimliği inşa sürecine etki eden eşitsizliğe dayalı faktörleri açıklama ve fen eğitiminde eşitliği tahsis etme potansiyeli taşımaktadır. Bilim sermayesi kaynakların dağılımı noktasında eğitimde eşitsizliğin yeniden üretimini etkilese de, bir yandan da eşitliğin sağlanması noktasında atılacak adımlara ilişkin bakış açısı ve yol haritası sunmaktadır. Fen eğitimi sürecine bilim sermayesi perspektifinden yaklaşmak, özellikle küçük yaş gruplarında destek noktalarının tespitine ve atılacak adımları somutlaştırmaya yardımcı olmaktadır. Bunun yanında bilim sermayesi yaklaşımına dayalı öğretim ile kişiselleştirilmiş bir öğrenme süreci yaratılarak, fen eğitiminde eşitsizliğin azaltılması ve kapsayıcılığının artırılması mümkün görünmektedir. Bu bağlamda örgün eğitimden mesleki kariyere uzanan süreçte, fen eğitiminde eşitliği sınırlayan ve eşitsizliği besleyen unsurları incelemeye ve müdahale programlarına uygulamaya yönelik araştırmalarda bilim sermayesi yaklaşımını benimsemenin, eğitimde eşitliğin tahsis edilmesine katkı sunacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Eşitsizlik, fen eğitimi, bilim sermayesi

INEQUALITY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION FROM A SCIENCE CAPITAL PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

This research aims to examine the inequalities in science education from the perspective of science capital. The accumulation of educational inequality in the literature points to inequalities based on gender, social class, and ethnicity, as in other fields. The science capital approach refers to the resources students have used in the science learning process based on their social group and the distribution of those resources. Science capital has the potential to explain students' participation in science learning processes in and out of school, their career goals in science, and the inequality-based factors that affect the science identity construction process and to allocate equality in science education. Although scientific capital affects the reproduction of inequality in education at the point of distribution of resources, it also offers a perspective and road map regarding the steps to ensure equality. Approaching the science education process from the perspective of science capital helps to identify support points and clarify the steps to be taken, especially in younger age groups. In addition, it seems possible to reduce inequality and increase inclusiveness in science education by creating a personalized learning process with the science capital-based teaching approach. In this context, adopting the science capital approach in research examining the factors limiting and feeding inequality in science education and applying it to intervention programs from formal education to professional careers will contribute to the allocation of equality in education.

Keywords

Inequality, science education, science capital

References

• Alegria, S. N., ve Branch, E. H. (2015). Causes and consequences of ınequality in the stem: diversity and its discontents. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(3).
• Archer Ker, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J. F., Dillon, J. S., Wong, B., ve Willis, B. (2013). ASPIRES Report: Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10 –14. King’s College London. Erişim adresi: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/aspires-report(a0237ac7-cb43-473e-879a-1ea0addff0e3).html
• Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227
• Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., ve Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: how families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881-908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290
• Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., ve Wong, B. (2013). “Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous”: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 21(1), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.748676
• Archer, L., Moote, J., MacLeod, E., Francis, B., ve DeWitt, J. (2020). ASPIRES 2: Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10-19. UCL Institute of Education.
• Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., ve Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? high school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564-582.
• Atmaca, T. (2019). Eğitimde toplumsal eşitsizliğin kültürel sermayenin aktarımıyla yeniden üretilmesi (Doktora tezi). Ulusal Tez Merkezi veri tabanından erişildi (548573)
• Atmaca, T. (2021). Reflections of educational inequalities on classroom practices and students’ development areas. Hayef: Journal of Education, 18(3). https://doi.org/DOI: 10.5152/hayef.2021.21006
• Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: a learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368
• Bešić, E. (2020). Intersectionality: A pathway towards inclusive education? Prospects, 49(3-4), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09461-6
• Betancur, L., Votruba-Drzal, E., ve Schunn, C. (2018). Socioeconomic gaps in science achievement. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0132-5
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Içinde J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (s. 15). Greenwood Press.
• Bricheno, P. A. (2001). Pupil attitudes: A longitudinal study of children’s attitudes to science at transfer from primary to secondary school ( Doktora tezi, Greenwich Üniversitesi). Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10/Patricia%20Anne%20Bricheno%20-%20Vol.%202%202001%20-%20redacted.pdf
• Christidou, D., Papavlasopoulou, S., ve Giannakos, M. (2021). Using the lens of science capital to capture and explore children’s attitudes toward science in an informal making-based space. Information and Learning Sciences, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-09-2020-0210
• Claussen, S., ve Osborne, J. (2013). Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education, 97(1), 58-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21040
• Conlan, M. (2016). Embracing ‘science capital’: An investigation into the approaches and initiatives established by a post-primary school to promote the uptake of STEM related subjects and subsequently STEM related careers with a particular focus on how this is helping to r. The Step Journal, 3(1).
• Contreras Ortiz, S., Villa Ramirez, J. L., Osorio del Valle, C., ve Ojeda Caicedo, V. V. (2020). Participation of women in STEM higher education programs in Latin America: the ıssue of ınequality. Laccei Inc. https://doi.org/10.18687/LACCEI2020.1.1.368
• Dasgupta, N., ve Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: steming the tide and broadening participation in stem careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
• Dekkers, H. P. J. M. (2007). Accessible and effective education. Içinde R. Teese, S. Lamb, M. Duru-Bellat, ve S. Helme (Ed.), International studies in educational ınequality, theory and policy. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5916-2_5
• DeWitt, J., ve Archer, L. (2017). Participation in informal science learning experiences: The rich get richer? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 356-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1360531
• DeWitt, J., Archer, L., ve Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: Exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431-2449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1248520
• DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., ve Wong, B. (2013). Young children’s aspirations in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037-1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
• Docking, C. (2021). A whole school approach to developing science capital (Growing Science Capital). Primary Science, 169.
• Du, X., ve Wong, B. (2019). Science career aspiration and science capital in China and UK: A comparative study using PISA data. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2136-2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1662135
• Edwards, R., Kirn, S., Hillman, T., Kloetzer, L., Mathieson, K., McDonnell, D., ve Phillips, T. (2018). Learning and developing science capital through citizen science. İçinde S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, ve A. Bonn (Ed.), Citizen Science. UCL Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.33
• Godec, S., King, H., ve Archer, L. (2017). The Science capital teaching approach: Engaging students with science, promoting social justice. Londra: University College of London. Erişim adresi: www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe-sciencecapital
• Henriksen, E. K., Dillon, J., ve Pellegrini, G. (2015). Improving participation in science and technology higher education: ways forward. İçinde E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, ve J. Ryder (Ed.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_22
• İdin, Ş., ve Aydoğdu, C. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin sosyal adalet ve eşitlik perspektifinden fen bilimleri eğitimine ilişkin görüşler. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.31178-338834
• Jones, M., Ennes, M., Weedfall, D., Chesnutt, K., ve Cayton, E. (2021). The development and validation of a measure of science capital, habitus, and future science ınterests. Research in Science Education, 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09916-y
• King, H., ve Rushton, E. A. C. (2020). Applying the lens of science capital to understand learner engagement in informal maker spaces. İçinde M. Giannakos (Ed.), Non-formal and informal science learning in the ICT Era. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6747-6_2
• Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9008-z
• Moote, J., Archer, L., DeWitt, J., ve MacLeod, E. (2021). Who has high science capital? An exploration of emerging patterns of science capital among students aged 17/18 in England. Research Papers in Education, 36(4), 402-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1678062
• Mujtaba, T., ve Reiss, M. J. (2013). Inequality in experiences of physics education: secondary school girls’ and boys’ perceptions of their physics education and intentions to continue with physics after the age of 16. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1824-1845. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.762699
• Nomikou, E., Archer, L., ve King, H. (2017). Building “science capital” in the classroom. School Science Review, 98(365), 118-124.
• Reimer, D., ve Pollak, R. (2010). Educational expansion and its consequences for vertical and horizontal ınequalities in access to higher education in west germany. European Sociological Review, 26(4), 415-430.
• Rüschenpöhler, L., ve Markic, S. (2020). Secondary school students’ acquisition of science capital in the field of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 220-236. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00127A
• Seebacher, L. M., Vana, I., Voigt, C., ve Tschank, J. (2021). Is science for everyone? Exploring intersectional inequalities in connecting with science. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.673850
• Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., ve McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
• van Langen, A., ve Dekkers, H. (2007). The lagging participation of girls and women in maths and science education. İçinde R. Teese, S. Lamb, M. Duru-Bellat, ve S. Helme (Ed.), International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy (ss. 558-573). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5916-2_23
• Wong, B. (2016a). Science capital. İçinde B. Wong (Ed.), Science education, career aspirations and minority ethnic students. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137533982_6
• Wong, B. (2016b). The ‘crisis’ in science participation. İçinde B. Wong (Ed.), Science education, career aspirations and minority ethnic students. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137533982_2
• Yıldız, S., ve Gültekin-Karakaş, D. (2019). Türkiye’de eğitim eşitsizliğinin farklı yüzleri. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 271-292. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.566795
• Zapfe, L., ve Gross, C. (2021). How do characteristics of educational systems shape educational inequalities? Results from a systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101837