14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Theoretical Explorations of Socio-Spatial Dimensions of School. Structural Constitution and School-Cultural Shaping of Pedagogical (Im)Possibilities as a School Development Approach
Matthias Forell
Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg
Presenting Author: Forell, Matthias
Space and spatiality are constitutive dimensions of educational activity. Accordingly, questions about the socio-spatial constitution and design of social spatiality inevitably become virulent in the school context. In the last two decades, there has been a clear shift in the social sciences from absolute to relational conceptions of space, focusing more on the appropriation of social space by the actors involved and less on its local dimension as a static and predetermined structure (Kessl & Reutlinger, 2022; Dirks & Kessl 2012; Löw, 2001). Accordingly, social spaces are only produced through the individual and collective use (appropriation) of reified places by interacting actors. Nevertheless, the community surrounding a school is characterised by the infrastructure of its (geographical) catchment area, i.e. the living spaces of the respective pupils as well as their personal characteristics. These can be divided into groups and distinguished from one another, for example, on the basis of differences in parental income, the distribution of families receiving transfer payments or the proportion of single-parent households. Bourdieu (1991) speaks in this context of a "distribution structure of the various types of capital [...] in an ensemble of subspaces" (p. 28). The advantage of this perspective is that the schools community surroundings can be clearly described and operationalised, for example by calculating social indices (Schräpler & Forell, 2023). In this way, the challenges faced by schools can be made transparent and targeted for support. Determining social indices and making them transparent carries the risk of the so-called identification dilemma and thus of stigmatisation (Norwich, 2013). The aim of this contribution is to develop a recognition-theoretical approach to the schools community surroundings that moves away from a one-dimensional view of pupils as a product of their (social) origins (and accompanying performance limits) towards a bond-oriented focus on their strengths and potentials that creates a culture of diversity (Stojanov, 2011). On the basis of a multi-level modelling of the single-schools community surroundings, the structural condition of school is expanded by its interactive moment through the interweaving of their objective and subjective dimensions. As a result, social practices move to the centre of the consideration of schools community surroundings, which - shaped by the attitudes and patterns of the involved actors and their milieus - can be understood as a space of (im)possibility (Helsper 2009). Finally, in the tension filed between relations of recognition and experiences of disregard, a recognition-oriented paradigm of school culture is presented and discussed with regard to its potential for empirically developing a resource-oriented adaptation of the schools community surrounding.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSchools in a challenging situation are schools under socio-spatial pressure (e.g., high unemployment rate, low average income) (van Ackeren et al., 2021). In doing so, this and the two subsequent contributions are guided by findings from school effectiveness research (based on Mortimer, 1991), according to which good student performance can be achieved at schools despite unfavorable location conditions, provided certain factors are taken into account (e.g.,positive and shared school culture, data generation and use, external support structures) (Harris & Chapman, 2010). On this basis, the article approaches the concept of social space first from a systems-theoretical and finally from a recognition-theoretical perspective. The focus is on the interaction in subjectively and objectively intertwined dimensions of school social space.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAgainst this background, the single-school can be understood as a social space within a social space insofar as the school social space can be defined by the various networks of interaction within and outside the school, which are framed and influenced by site-specific conditions (Forell, 2023). In understanding the fundamental conceptual, theoretical, and empirical interconnectedness and conditionality of the school with its surrounding community, a context-sensitive and social space-oriented school and classroom development can thus be linked to the Anglo-American discourse on school-community partnerships and community schools (Becks, 2023). Considering the frequently cited finding of a (close) link between students’ socio-economic background and their educational success at school, it seems indispensable to deal decisively with the social space at school to break down the structural conditions that promote the reproduction of social inequality. From this, the research question that overarches this and the two subsequent contributions can be derived: How can a context-sensitive interaction between involved actors at schools in challenging situations be promoted?
ReferencesBecks, C. (2023). Schooling As Community Service: Schule und Sozialraum in der U.S.-amerikanischen Tradition. In M. Forell, G. Bellenberg, L. Gerhards; & L. Schleenbecker (eds), Schule als Sozialraum im Sozialraum. Theoretische und empirische Erkundungen sozialräumlicher Dimensionen von Schule. Münster: Waxmann (189-208)
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Physischer, sozialer und angeeigneter physischer Raum, in: Wentz, Martin (eds.) Stadt-Räume, 25-34.
Dirks & Kessl (2012). Räumlichkeit in Erziehungs- und Bildungsverhältnissen. In U. Bauer (eds.), Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Forell, M. (2023). Zur theoretischen Verfasstheit des schulischen Sozialraums. Kartierungen sozialräumlicher Dimensionen von Schule. In M. Forell, G. Bellenberg, L. Gerhards, & L. Schleenbecker (eds.), Schule als Sozialraum im Sozialraum. Theoretische und empirische Erkundungen sozialräumlicher Dimensionen von Schule. Münster: Waxmann (13-26)
Kessl, F., & Reutinger, C. (eds.) (2022). Sozialraum. Eine elementare Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Löw, M. (2001). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Norwich, B. (2013). Dilemmas of difference and the identification of special educational needs/disability: International perspectives. British Educational Research Journal Volume 35, Issue 3, 447-467.
Schräpler & Forell, M. (2023). Konstruktion eines Sozialindex für die
SchuMaS Schule. In M. Forell, G. Bellenberg, L. Gerhards, & L. Schleenbecker (eds.), Schule als Sozialraum im Sozialraum. Theoretische und empirische Erkundungen sozialräumlicher Dimensionen von Schule. Münster: Waxmann (61-80)
Stojanov, K. (2011). Bildungsgerechtigkeit Rekonstruktionen eines umkämpften Begriffs. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2010). Improving schools in difficult contexts: Towards a differentiated approach. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(4), 417–431.
Helsper, W. (2009): Schulkultur und Milieu – Schulen als symbolische Ordnungen pädagogischen Sinns. In: Melzer, W., & Tippelt, R. (eds.), Kulturen der Bildung. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Mortimore, P. (1991). School Effectiveness Research.: Which Way at the Crossroads? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 213–229.
van Ackeren, I., Holtappels, H. G., Bremm, N., & Hillebrand-Petri, A. (eds.) (2021). Schulen in herausfordernden Lagen – Forschungsbefunde und Schulentwicklung in der Region Ruhr. Das Projekt "Potenziale entwickeln – Schulen stärken". Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Preservice Teachers' Cultural Stereotypes and Individual Constructions of Difference in Relation to Different Forms of Poverty
Oscar Yendell1, Carolina Claus2, Meike Bonefeld3, Karina Karst1
1University of Mannheim; 2Europa University Flensburg; 3University of Freiburg
Presenting Author: Yendell, Oscar
School-based studies have revealed predominantly negative stereotypes held by (preservice) teachers toward students from lower classes (Dunkake & Schuchardt, 2015; Lange-Vester, 2015). Dunkake and Schuchart (2015) revealed in their study, that preservice teachers in Germany perceive students from low-class backgrounds as more aggressive, lazy, undisciplined, and unmotivated compared to students from middle-class origins. In another study, Glock and Kleen (2020) showed that preservice teachers in Germany were more likely to associate students with high SES with high language skills, high ability, and good working habits. These negative stereotypes contribute to biased performance expectations (Tobisch & Dresel, 2017). Accordingly, teachers' actions can be understood as pedagogical communication that is pre-structured by classification, evaluation, and judgment (Bourdieu, 1992). Following this theoretical perspective, class-specific stereotypes of (preservice) teachers can lead to a reproduction of educational inequality (Lange-Vester, 2015). Focusing on preservice teachers is important because university teaching approaches can help reduce negative stereotypes among preservice teachers (Kumar & Hamer, 2013).
Among individuals with low-class origins, a distinction can be made between welfare recipients, who receive welfare, and the working poor, who live below the poverty line without welfare support (Marx, 2020). Extracurricular studies show that welfare recipients face even more negative stereotypes compared to the working poor (Suomi et al., 2022). The more negative stereotypes refer, among other things, to a perceived lower conscientiousness and competence. To date, no studies exist that survey stereotypes of (preservice) teachers in relation to these two groups. Given the lack of studies investigating stereotypes of (preservice) teachers towards different low-class origins, this exploratory mixed-methods study aims to examine cultural stereotypes (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989) and individual stereotypes in the form of constructions of difference (West & Fenstermaker, 1995) of preservice teachers towards the working poor and welfare recipients.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo determine if preservice teachers have different stereotypes on the working poor and welfare recipients, we conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with different samples (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In the quantitative sub-study, preservice teachers (N=196) used an open-ended production task to write down cultural stereotypes (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989) for both groups. Two raters assigned these stereotypes to inductively formed content categories (Kappa = 0.82) and negative, neutral, and positive valences (Kappa = 0.88). Finally, a multi-factorial ANOVA with repeated measures with the factors group (welfare recipients vs. working poor), content category (social status vs. consumption & material goods vs. education vs. commitment vs. family conditions vs. social behavior vs. emotional state vs. health vs. sense of responsibility vs. outward appearance), and valence (positive vs. neutral vs. negative) was calculated. In the qualitative sub-study, we conducted problem-centered interviews with preservice teachers (N=10) and analyzed them according to grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Witzel, 2000) to examine individual constructions of difference between both groups.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of the multi-factorial ANOVA with repeated measures indicate that both groups are associated with negative stereotypes. However, preservice teachers mention more cultural stereotypes about welfare recipients compared to the working poor, F(1, 195) = 11.27, p < .001, η2 = .06. Additionally, they express more negative and fewer positive stereotypes towards welfare recipients than the working poor, F(1.27, 248.23) = 56.1, p < .001, η2 = .22. Negative stereotypes primarily revolve around individual characteristics such as commitment, sense of responsibility, and social behavior. The qualitative study reveals that all interviewees perceive welfare recipients as having more negative public connotations than the working poor, often attributing individual failures like laziness to them. Preservice teachers who follow this public connotation differentiate cause-orientated between the two groups by attributing individual failure to welfare recipients and highlighting structural failures for the working poor. Preservice teachers, on the other hand, who referred to personal contact with welfare recipients, contradicted this public opinion. They only described a societal disadvantage of welfare recipients compared to the working poor.
Overall, it is evident that preservice teachers tend to adopt negative cultural stereotypes unless countered by personal experience and professional knowledge. Consequently, the importance of social space-sensitive teacher training is discussed, aiming to foster an understanding of the social context and living conditions of welfare recipients, thereby reducing negative stereotypes.
ReferencesBourdieu, P. (1992): Homo academicus. 1. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verl. (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 1002).
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2. ed.). Sage Publications.
Dunkake, I., & Schuchart, C. (2015). Stereotypes and teacher characteristics as an explanation for the class-specific disciplinary practices of pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.005
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154008
Glock, S., & Kleen, H. (2020). Preservice teachers’ attitudes, attributions, and stereotypes: Exploring the disadvantages of students from families with low socioeconomic status. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, 100929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100929
Kumar, R., & Hamer, L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward student diversity and proposed instructional practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112466899
Lange-Vester, A. (2015). Habitusmuster von Lehrpersonen - auf Distanz zur Kultur der unteren sozialen Klassen [Stereotypes of Teachers’ Habitus – depreciating lower class culture]. ZSE - Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 35(4), 360–376.
Marx, I. (2020). The working poor. In B. Greve (Ed.), Routledge international handbooks. Routledge international handbook of poverty (pp. 245–255). Routledge.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2. Aufl.). Sage Publications.
Suomi, A., Schofield, T.P., Haslam, N., & Butterworth, P. (2022). Is unemployment benefit stigma related to poverty, payment receipt, or lack of employment? A vignette experiment about Australian views. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 22(2), 694–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12313
Tobisch, A., & Dresel, M. (2017). Negatively or positively biased? Dependencies of teachers’ judgments and expectations based on students’ ethnic and social backgrounds. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9392-z
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender & Society, 9(1), 8–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124395009001002
Witzel, A. (2000). The problem-centered interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.1.1132
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Habitus Sensitivity in Schools: Experiences of Using Quantitative Data to Enable Teachers to Access Students' Social Space
Jakob Schuchardt, Jörn Michael Richter
Ruhr-University Bochum
Presenting Author: Schuchardt, Jakob;
Richter, Jörn Michael
Cross-national educational studies of student performance regularly show that socioeconomically disadvantaged students perform worse on average than their socioeconomically advantaged peers (OECD 2019; Stubbe et al. 2020). Bourdieu's theory of 'habitus' can be used as an approach to explain the reproduction of such social inequalities: while privileged groups of students inherit the cultural preconditions for successful adaptation to the educational system from their parents' homes, the familial habitus of non-privileged students may deviate from school values and requirements, so that it is often not performance but the "socially conditioned attitude" that is judged (Kramer, 2013). According to this, there is a lack of "habitus sensitivity" in everyday school life (Vester & Teiwes-Kügler, 2014), which is expressed in the fact that the lifeworlds of students and teachers are sometimes far apart, which can lead to conflicts and misunderstandings in class or when dealing with each other. In order to strengthen this "habitus sensitivity", it may be possible to provide teachers with appropriate knowledge about the social space of their students. As part of the Germany-wide educational project "SchuMas" (Schule macht stark), we developed an R-based tool that provides geo-referenced social space analyses based on small-scale social space data. Designed as a digital tool for social space exploration, the tool offers teachers the possibility to visualise different social indicators within the catchment area of schools on a city map. These indicators include, for example, the unemployment rate, the purchasing power or the educational level of the inhabitants. The representation at this area level makes it possible to get a differentiated picture of the social situation in the vicinity of the schools and thus to identify possible challenges and potentials within this social area on a quantitative basis. The distributions of the social indicators can be visualised on the basis of choropleth maps, for which various classification options are available (e.g. quantiles, "natural breaks"). Further possibilities for quantitative exploration of social space arise from the visual representation of the respective social indicators in the form of box plots, diagrams and in tabular form. In addition to a detailed description of the tool, our contribution will report on practical experiences of co-constructive collaboration with schools in challenging social spaces, where we have used our tool to offer teachers in the respective schools a workshop and an opportunity to reflect on the social space and the habitus of their students.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe geo-referenced social space maps generated with the R-based tool are based on data from the company microm and offer the possibility of combining data from small-scale neighbourhoods (approx. 500 households) to create a representative overall picture of the social space or school environment. The data was collected as part of the SchuMaS project for those schools with which intensive cooperation took place over a year in a so-called workshop phase in order to design a social space-oriented school and teaching development process. Based on the location of the school, the application allows to look at social space related indicators in a radius of 20 kilometres. In addition to descriptive analyses and visual representations of classified social space indicators, the application also offers the possibility of a multivariate analysis of the social situation in the school environment using a multiple deprivation index. This index is methodologically based on the British model of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (DCLG 2019) and represents the extent to which small-scale neighbourhoods deviate from the citywide average.
In addition to information on the usage of the R-based tool, the contribution also discusses how teachers can be made aware of the living conditions of their students using quantitative data. From a methodological point of view, we will discuss the workshop concept and experiences in the exchange with teachers and other pedagogical staff.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe presentation will give an insight into the possibilities of linking scientific work and everyday life in schools. On the one hand, it will show how social space data can be processed in a comprehensible and theory-based way for school administrators, teachers and other pedagogical staff, and how it can be related to everyday school practice. On the other hand, the approach chosen in the collaboration also emphasises the great relevance of a co-constructive exchange between science and practice, in which both parties meet at eye level.
The experiences in the cooperation with the schools also show that although teachers have immanent knowledge about the social space and the social background of their students, discussions and reflections under guidance and with consideration of the actual social space data can help to improve habitus sensitivity and thus increase the probability of reducing misunderstandings and conflicts due to different life worlds.
ReferencesKramer, R.-T. (2013). Kulturelle Reproduktion und symbolische Gewalt. Pierre Bourdieus Beitrag zur Bildungssoziologie. In B. Dippelhofer-Stiem & S. Dippelhofer (eds.), Enzyklopädie Erziehungswissenschaft Online. Erziehungs- und Bildungssoziologie. Historische Verortungen und Impulse von Klassikern. Beltz Juventa. Weinheim und Basel. https://www.doi.org/10.3262/EEO20130287
Lange-Vester, A., & Teiwes-Kügler, C. (2014). Habitussensibilität im schulischen Alltag als Beitrag zur Integration ungleicher sozialer Gruppen. In Sander, T. (eds.) Habitussensibilität. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06887-5_8
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (2019). The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (IoD2019). London.
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. PISA, OECD Publishing Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en
Stubbe, T.C., Krieg, M., Beese, C., & Jusufi, D. (2020). Soziale Disparitäten in den ma-thematischen und naturwissenschaftlichen Kompetenzen von Viertklässlerinnen und Viertklässlern. In Schwippert, K., Kasper, D., Köller, O., McElvany, N, Selter, C., Steffensky, M., & Wendt, H. (eds). TIMMS 2019 Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich, 263-290. Münster: Waxmann. doi: 10.31244/9783830993193
|
