Hello All,
Please post discussion questions for the Bourdieu reading here. Some reminders about these questions: they should reference the text but they don't have to summarize the text. Pose a question that will help people to make connection to the text and build knowledge by talking with each other.
Short, succinct, and thought-provoking. And, remember that this is an online source. Is there an image or video that accompanies your question? put it up here.
Finally, a reminder that these should be up by Tuesday at noon. If your group makes changes in who is posting when, let me know, as I'm also keeping an eye on these.
lps.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBourdieu uses cultural capital to explain the connection between an individual's culture and academic success. In essence, because of their cultural capital, members of the dominant culture have a higher rate of achieving academic success than members of the working-class. Does this suggest that the only way a member of the working-class can achieve academic success is through assimilating to the beliefs, language, values, etc., of the dominant culture? What steps could an educator take to assist a student from a working-class family in achieving academic success if he or she refuses to abandon their culture in favor of the dominant culture?
ReplyDeleteBourdieu talks a lot about the different types of capital: socail, cultural and econmic. He also discusses how there is a chance for conversion between the different types of capital. Although he discusses that it may not always be convertible, does it really every seem convertible? If it is convertible for one person in a certain way, is it then convertible in the same way for someone else? Just thinking about all of the criticisms of meritocracy and capital, does it really seem that these conversions are possible in reality?
ReplyDeleteBourdieu speaks of various notions of capital outside of the economic sense. In relation to social and cultural capital, looking specifically in terms of education, do you agree that it is something inherited, accumulated, competed for, and expanded/maintained through network connections? Can you think of ways you have seen this manifested in your own classroom experiences?
ReplyDeleteRather than touch on many of the aspects of capital, I’d like to focus our attention on one aspect of it. In particular, I’d like to focus our attention on the APPLICATION of the concept of capital. (It is worth noting that in focusing on this topic, it is necessary to temporarily discard any concerns about Bourdieu’s concept and accept his proposals as a priori:
ReplyDeleteApplication of Capital
Bourdieu argues that a student’s success can be explained by the capital that student possesses:
“[The concept of capital] explains the unequal scholastic achievement of children originating from the different social classes by relating academic success, i.e. the specific profits which children from the different classes and class fractions can obtain in the academic market, to the distribution of cultural capital between the classes and class fractions.”
How does this understanding of student success inform our assessment of students? For example, do we try to adjust our assessment to account for differences in capital? Is this possible? If so how?
How does this understanding of student success inform our teaching? For example, do we attempt to “teach” capital to students? Is this possible? If so how?
Social capital is essentially a neutral resource, and though Bourdieu would probably agree with it, his writing points towards social capital as a mode of producing and/or reinforcing inequality. I wonder if social capital can be considered in a positive format. According to Teachman, Et al(1996) ‘social capital (is) measured by the density of the interactions amongst parents, children and school’. Viewing social capital from the viewpoint of Coleman (1988), can we create better schooling environment by encouraging better relations between the three parties of children, parents and school?
ReplyDeleteIn discussing cultural capital and social capital, Bourdieu emphasizes that simply acquiring either cultural capital or social capital is not enough; the efficacy of both is determined by the individual's knowledge of how to "consume" the materials or make the best use of social exchanges.
ReplyDeleteBy promoting standards-based assessment and educational opportunities for low-income students to obtain higher levels of education, presumably students are being given access to the same materials or potential opportunities as middle or upper-class students. However, based on Bourdieu's argument, it seems that an important piece of the puzzle is missing for students who have no experience with "consuming" these forms of capital.
Is it possible for schools to account for this gap in not only social and cultural capital, but also in the ways to navigate its best use? (In your experience, have you ever seen this attempted, either successfully or unsuccessfully?)
Bourdieu suggests that because of the different types of capital necessary to find success, the educational system reproduces the social structure instead of enabling equal access to success through merit as imagined. Greater inherited economic capital grants one more time to develop cultural capital while simultaneously allowing access to extended education. I think we can all agree that we have seen situations like this first hand, but what about the “rags-to-riches” success stories that we do occasionally hear about? What type of capital are these individuals taking advantage of, or is it a specific balance between the different types that is significant? What can we, as educators and researches, do to uncover and replicate this use of capital to create a more even playing field in our own classrooms?
ReplyDelete