Should I Start at MATH 101? Content Repetition as an Academic Strategy in Elective Curriculums

IF 3.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Monique H. Harrison, Philip A. Hernandez, M. Stevens
{"title":"Should I Start at MATH 101? Content Repetition as an Academic Strategy in Elective Curriculums","authors":"Monique H. Harrison, Philip A. Hernandez, M. Stevens","doi":"10.1177/00380407221076490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do undergraduates make their first course decisions, and are these decisions fateful? Drawing on serial interviews (N = 200) of 53 students at an admissions-selective university, we show that incoming students with disparate precollege experiences differ in their orientations toward and strategies for considering first college math courses. Content repeaters opt for courses that repeat material covered in prior coursework, whereas novices opt for courses covering material new to them. Content repeaters receive high grades and report confidence in their math ability, whereas novices in the same classes receive lower grades and report invidious comparisons with classmates. These strategies vary with students’ socioeconomic background and prior exposure to institutions of higher education, suggesting the role of content repetition in maintaining class disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways. Findings encourage researchers to resist equating content repetition with remediation, attend to the agentic and social-psychological dimensions of academic progress, and recognize that elective curriculums create conditions for the performative reproduction of academic and socioeconomic inequalities.","PeriodicalId":51398,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407221076490","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

How do undergraduates make their first course decisions, and are these decisions fateful? Drawing on serial interviews (N = 200) of 53 students at an admissions-selective university, we show that incoming students with disparate precollege experiences differ in their orientations toward and strategies for considering first college math courses. Content repeaters opt for courses that repeat material covered in prior coursework, whereas novices opt for courses covering material new to them. Content repeaters receive high grades and report confidence in their math ability, whereas novices in the same classes receive lower grades and report invidious comparisons with classmates. These strategies vary with students’ socioeconomic background and prior exposure to institutions of higher education, suggesting the role of content repetition in maintaining class disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways. Findings encourage researchers to resist equating content repetition with remediation, attend to the agentic and social-psychological dimensions of academic progress, and recognize that elective curriculums create conditions for the performative reproduction of academic and socioeconomic inequalities.
我应该从数学101开始学吗?内容重复作为选修课的学习策略
大学生们是如何做出他们的第一个课程决定的?这些决定是决定性的吗?通过对一所择优录取大学的53名学生的连续访谈(N = 200),我们发现具有不同大学前经历的新生在考虑大学第一门数学课程的倾向和策略上存在差异。内容重复者选择重复以前课程内容的课程,而新手选择涵盖新内容的课程。重复学习内容的学生获得高分,并对自己的数学能力充满信心,而同一班级的新手得分较低,并与同学进行令人讨厌的比较。这些策略因学生的社会经济背景和先前在高等教育机构的接触而异,这表明内容重复在维持科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)途径的阶级差异中发挥了作用。研究结果鼓励研究人员抵制将内容重复等同于补习,关注学术进步的能动性和社会心理学维度,并认识到选修课程为学术和社会经济不平等的表演性再现创造了条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.10%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Sociology of Education (SOE) provides a forum for studies in the sociology of education and human social development. SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals’ experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development. Such research may span various levels of analysis, ranging from the individual to the structure of relations among social and educational institutions. In an increasingly complex society, important educational issues arise throughout the life cycle.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信