Hi Natasha,

Great timing, just yesterday I submitted my own MPhil research into these barriers!

My focus is the types of writing children come to associate with science at primary level, the reasons for this (practical/structural constraints faced by teachers) and potential effects on science identity formation.

In short – is the writing side of science (still v traditional) challenging gains made by more contemporary STEM initiatives?

I hope to develop a couple of papers from the thesis so I'll keep you posted. (Also hoping to find funding to continue my research if anyone out there would like to fund a PhD!)

In the meantime here are some papers I found particularly useful for background on barriers:

Archer et al. (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.

Archer, et al. (2018) Using Bourdieu in practice? Urban secondary teachers’ and students’ experiences of a Bourdieusian-inspired pedagogical approach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 283–298.

Archer, et al. (2013). ASPIRES. Young people’s science and career aspirations age 10–14. Final Report. London: King's College London.

 

Colucci-Gray, et al. (2017). Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies for 21^st century learning. British Educational Research Association (BERA). Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/bera-research-commissions/reviewing-the-potential-and-challenges-of-developing-steam-education-2

 

DeWitt, et al. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431–2449.

Godec, et al. (2017). The Science Capital Teaching Approach: engaging students with science, promoting social justice. London: University College London.

 

Gresnigt, et al. (2014). Promoting science and technology in primary education: a review of integrated curricula. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 47–84.

 

House of Commons. (2018). Delivering STEM skills for the economy. Forty-seventh report of session 2017–19. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/691/69102.htm

Mendick & Danielsson. (2017). A Critique of the Stem Pipeline: Young People’s Identities in Sweden and Science Education Policy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(4), 481–497.

Mostafa. (2019). Why don’t more girls choose to pursue a science career? PISA in Focus, 93. Paris: OECD Publishing.

National Audit Office. (2018). Delivering STEM (Science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills for the economy. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO).

Osborne & Dillon. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.

Primary Science Teaching Trust, 2019, A new project for PSTT - Primary science capital: a whole school teaching approach. Retrieved from https://pstt.org.uk/what-we-do/news/new-project-pstt-primary-science-capital-whole-school-teaching-approach

Wellcome Trust. (2017). ‘State of the nation’ report of UK primary science education. London: Wellcome Trust.