The Influence of Cultural Capital on Students' Perceptions and Experiences of Hidden Curriculum

Öz

This study investigates the perceptions and experiences of ninth-grade students concerning the hidden curriculum at a science high school in Ankara, focusing on how cultural capital influences its manifestation. A qualitative case study was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews and observations. Throughout a 20-week period, 34 interviews were conducted with 17 purposively selected participants, one at the beginning and one at the end of the study, complemented by 10 days of observation over biweekly school visits. The collected data underwent content analysis, involving thorough reading, coding, and theme identification. The findings highlight that the cultural capital of students shaped their experiences and perceptions of the hidden curriculum, influencing their access to and use of social and material resources at school. Notably, students viewed their school primarily as a preparatory ground for exams rather than an institution aligned with the broader educational goals for science high schools. Additionally, the study observed differences in the experiences of boarder and extern students. The findings suggest that educators need to develop inclusive strategies that recognize and integrate students' varying cultural capital to foster a more emancipatory educational environment. Additionally, the study highlights the need for boarding schools to establish a participatory culture for extern students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hidden curriculum
• habitus
• cultural capital
• science high school
• stratification

Kültürel Sermayenin Öğrencilerin Örtük Program Algıları ve Yaşantıları Üzerindeki İzleri

Öz

Bu çalışma, Ankara'da bir fen lisesindeki dokuzuncu sınıf öğrencilerinin örtük programa ilişkin algılarını ve yaşantılarını, kültürel sermayenin bunun şekillenmesindeki etkisini göz önünde bulundurarak incelemektedir. Çalışmada nitel bir durum çalışması kullanılmış, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve gözlemlerden yararlanılmıştır. Yirmi haftalık bir süre zarfında, amaçlı örneklemeyle seçilmiş 17 katılımcının her biri ile çalışmanın başında ve sonunda olmak üzere toplam 34 görüşme; her iki haftada bir gerçekleştirilen okul ziyaretleriyle 10 günlük gözlem yapılmıştır. Toplanan verilerde içerik analizi yapılmış, veriler titizlikle okunmuş, kodlanmış ve temalar belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin kültürel sermayelerinin, okuldaki sosyal ve materyal kaynaklara erişimlerini ve kullanımlarını şekillendirdiğini ve örtük programa dair algı ve yaşantılarını etkilediğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Öğrencilerin, okullarını öncelikli olarak fen liselerine dair daha geniş hedeflerle özdeşleşen bir kurum olarak değil de sınavlara iyi hazırlık yapan bir yer olarak ele aldıkları da gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca, yatılı ve gündüzlü öğrencilerin yaşantıları arasında da farklılıklar gözlemlenmiştir. Bulgular eğitimcilerin, öğrencilerin farklı kültürel sermayelerini göz önünde bulundurabilecek ve dâhil edecek daha kapsayıcı ve özgürleştirici bir eğitim ortamı geliştirmelerinin gereğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, çalışmada yatılı okulların gündüzlü öğrenciler için daha katılımcı bir kültür oluşturmasının gereği vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örtük program
• Habitus
• Kültürel sermaye
• Fen lisesi
• Tabakalaşma

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.1000
2. Akçay, S., & Türkmen, G. S. (2023). High school students’ and parents’ perceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 11(4), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.11n.4p.353
3. Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162, 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748016200106
4. Apple, M. W. (1980). The other side of the hidden curriculum: Correspondence theories and the labor process. Interchange, 11(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748016200105
5. Arun, Ö. (2014). İnce zevkler - Olağan beğeniler. Cogito, 76, 167–192.
6. Ball, S., Davies, J., David, M., & Reay, D. (2002). “Classification” and “judgement”: social class and the “cognitive structures” of choice of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1), 51–72. http://doi.org/10.1080/01425690120102854
7. Bandini, J., Mitchell, C., Epstein-Peterson, Z. D., Amobi, A., Cahill, J., Peteet, J., Balboni, T., & Balboni, M. J. (2016). Student and faculty reflections of the hidden curriculum. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, 34(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909115616359
8. Barrett, H. C. (2020). Towards a cognitive science of the human: Cross-cultural approaches and their urgency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 620–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.007

9. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Pearson.
10. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenword Press.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/202060
14. Bourdieu, P. (2014). Varisler (1st ed.). Heretik.
15. Bourdieu, P., Darbel, A., & Schnapper, D. (1991). The love of art: European art museums and their public. Polity Press.
16. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. SAGE Publications Ltd.
17. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). Invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
18. Cerit, Y. (2006). Öğrenci, öğretmen ve yöneticilerin okul kavramıyla ilgili metaforlara ilişkin görüşleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 6(3), 669–700.
19. Channaveer, R. M., & Baikady, R. (2022). Case study. In M. R. Islam, N. A. Khan, & R. Baikady (Eds.), Principles of social research methodology (pp. 313–323). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_21
20. Cotton, D., Winter, J., & Bailey, I. (2013). Researching the hidden curriculum: intentional and unintended messages. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.733684
21. Cresswell, J. W. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design- Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
22. Çobanoğlu, R., & Engin Demir, C. (2014). Okullardaki örtük programın görünen kısmı. Elementary Education Online, 13(3), 776–786.
23. Çubukçu, Z. (2012). The effect of hidden curriculum on character education process of primary school students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 1526–1535.
24. De Lissovoy, N. (2012). Education and violation: conceptualizing power, domination, and agency in the hidden curriculum. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 463–484. http://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2011.618831
25. Demirel, Ö. (2005). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme. Pegem Akademi
26. DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of U.S. high school students. American Sociological Review, 47, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094962
27. Donovan, B. M. (2014). Playing with fire? The impact of the hidden curriculum in school genetics on essentialist conceptions of race. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 462–496. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21138
28. Dueggeli, A., Kassis, M., & Kassis, W. (2021). Navigation and negotiation towards school success at upper secondary school: The interplay of structural and procedural risk and protective factors for resilience pathways. Education Sciences, 11(395), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080395
29. Giroux, H. (1979). Schooling and culture of positivism: notes on the death of history. Educational Theory, 29(4), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1979.tb00859.x
30. Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–294. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3.a67x4u33g7682734
31. Gordon, D. (1981). The aesthetic attitude and the hidden curriculum. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 15(2), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/3332241
32. Gürer, G. T. (2022). Ortaöğretim kurumlarının örgüt kültürü tipolojisi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
33. Güven, I. (2019). Neo-conservative Islam and transition of secular education in Turkey. Journal for the Study of Religious and Ideologies, 18(53), 37–59. http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/view/1075/808
34. Hemmings, A. (2000). The `hidden’ corridor curriculum. High School Journal, 83(2), 1–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364505
35. Jackson, P. W. (1966). The students’ world. The Elemantary School Journal, 66(7), 345–357. https://www.jstor.org/stable/999944
36. Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge.
37. Jukić, R. (2019). Hidden curriculum and school culture as postulates of a better society. In J. L. Vodopivec, L. Jančec, & T. Štemberger (Eds.), Implicit Pedagogy for Optimized Learning in Contemporary Education (pp. 1–22). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5799-9.ch001
38. Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3
39. Kidman, J., Yen, C.-F., & Abrams, E. (2013). Indigenous students’ experiences of the hidden curriculum in science education: A cross-national study in New zealand and Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 43–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9365-9
40. Kiss, J., Szeger, K., & Hera, G. (2013). Prejudices, social competencies and political orientations in relation to schools’ hidden curriculum. Intercultural Education, 24(3), 277–287. http://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.793028
41. Koyuncu, M., & Uçar, R. (2024). Anadolu İmam Hatip Lisesi öğretmenlerinin öğrencilerine i̇lişkin öğrenci vizyonunun örtük program açısından değerlendirilmesi. Marife Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.33420/marife.1448787
42. Lamont, M., Beljean, S., & Clair, M. (2014). What is missing? Cultural processes and causal pathways to inequality. Socio-Economic Review, 12(3), 573–608. http://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwu011
43. Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/202113
44. Lamont, M., & Small, M. L. (2008). How culture matters: Enriching our understanding of powerty. In A. C. Lin & D. R. Harris (Eds.), The colors of poverty why racial and ethnic disparities persist (pp. 76–102). Russell Sage Foundation.
45. Lynch, K. (1989). The hidden curriculum: Reproduction in education, an appraisal. The Falmer Press.
46. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design- An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
47. McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools; an introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
48. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
49. MoNE. (1999). Fen liseleri yönetmeliği. In Resmi Gazete (No. 23579). Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/23579.pdf
50. Özsöz, C. (2014). Pierre Bourdieu: Simgesel şiddet, eğitim, iktidar. Cogito, 76, 290–312.
51. Öztürk, A., & Taşpınar, M. (2021). Türkiye’de örtük program üzerine yapılmış çalışmaların analizi: Bir meta sentez araştırması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 251–305. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1452520
52. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & Evaluation methods. Sage.
53. Polatcan, M. (2017). Okullarda sosyal sermaye ile yenileşme iklimi arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
54. Portelli, J. P. (1993). Exposing the hidden curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(4), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027930250404
55. Pratt, A. B. (2019). Curriculum in conflict: how African American and Indigenous educational thought complicates the hidden curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 31(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1661862
56. Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul: the shaping of the private self. Routledge.
57. Shirk, E. (1976). The “hidden curriculum” revisited. Journal of Thought, 11(1), 53–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42588541
58. Skelton, A. (1997). Studying hidden curricula: developing a perspective in the light of postmodern insights. Curriculum Studies, 5(2), 177–193. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681369700200007
59. Smith, D. (2020). Cultural group selection and human cooperation: a conceptual and empirical review. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 2, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2020.2
60. Snyder, B. (1971). The hidden curriculum. Knopf. Spiel, C., Schwartzman, S., Busemeyer, M., Cloete, N., Drori, G., Lassnigg, L., Schober, B., Schweisfurth, M., Verma, S., Bakarat, B., Maassen, P., & Reich, R. (2018). The contribution of education to social progress. In Report of the International Panel on Social Progress (pp. 753–778). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399661.006
61. Stake, R. E. (2023). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, M. D. Giardina &G. S. Cannela(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed., pp. 121–141). SAGE Publications.
62. Swartz, D. (2013). Kültür ve iktidar (2nd ed.). İletişim.
63. Şalcı, Z. (2021). Fen ve sosyal bilimler programlı Anadolu İmam Hatip Liseleri üzerine bir inceleme: Kocaeli örneği [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Marmara University.
64. Tan, C. Y., Peng, B., & Lyu, M. (2019). What types of cultural capital benefit students’ academic achievement at different educational stages? Interrogating the meta-analytic evidence. Educational Research Review, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100289
65. Türk, H. B. (2014). “Sihirden nefret eden bir ilüzyonist”: Bourdieu, gelenek ve ideoloji. In G. Çeğin, E. Göker, A. Arlı, & Ü. Tatlıcan (Eds.), Ocak ve zanaat: Pierre Bourdieu derlemesi (3rd ed., pp. 605–627). İletişim.
66. Ünal, A. Z. (2004). sosyal tabakalaşma bağlamında Pierre Bourdieu’nün kültürel sermaye kavramı. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Hacettepe University, Ankara.
67. Veznedaroğlu, R. L. (2007). Okulda ve sınıfta örtük program (Bir özel ilköğretim okulu örneği). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ankara University, Ankara.
68. Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor : How working class kids get working class jobs. Columbia University Press.
69. Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (2003). A geography of power, identity, and difference in adult edcuation curriculum practice. In R. Edwards & R. Usher (Eds.), Space, curriculum, and learning (pp. 123–139). Information Age Publishing.
70. Winter, J., & Cotton, D. (2012). Making the hidden curriculum visible : sustainability literacy in higher education. Environment Education Research, 18(6), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.670207
71. Yang, Y. (2014). Bourdieu , practice and change: beyond the criticism of determinism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(14), 1522–1540. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.839375
72. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press.
73. Yüksel, S. (2002). Örtük program. Eğitim ve Bilim, 27, 31–37.