Emily Montenero is a Senior Lecturer in Primary Science. She teaches across both the undergraduate and postgraduate teacher training routes within the School of Education. In her role at St Mary’s University, Emily works with science organisations including STEM and Primary Science Quality Mark (PSQM). She also facilitates the Primary Science Enhancement Award (PSEA) for trainees at St Mary’s University.
What is science capital and why is it important?
Science capital refers to a concept which describes what a person knows about science, their attitude towards science and who they know working in science within their everyday life (Kontkanen et al., 2024). Increasing science capital has proven to be instrumental in encouraging children to pursue science-related educational and career aspirations (Archer et al., 2015). This is important because the number of young people choosing to study STEM subjects after the age of 16, and the profile of students who go on to pursue STEM careers is declining (Archer et al., 2015). Consequently, skills gaps are appearing in some STEM industries, which may negatively impact the economy in the future. The Science Capital Teaching Approach (SCTA) was developed by University College London in 2013 to address this issue by changing secondary school children’s attitudes to learning science. Although the focus was initially on the impact on secondary school children, due to the success of the approach, the project was also rolled out in primary schools. This led to the production of The Primary Science Capital Teaching Approach Teacher Handbook (Chowdhuri, King and Archer, 2021), which has subsequently been widely adopted across primary schools in England.
Science capital and initial teacher training
Whilst delivering the Primary Science lectures at St Mary’s University, I discovered that students held negative attitudes towards teaching science. Using an informal, anonymous poll, students were asked to write one word which described how they felt about learning science whilst at school. Most of the responses were negative, including words such as “Difficult, Uninterested, Stressful, Boring and Awful”. Students were then asked to write one word which summarised how they felt about teaching science in the future. “Nervous” was the most frequently used word, followed by “Unprepared” and “Apprehensive”. As suggested by Jones and Spicer (2019), a reason for this could be that a majority of students studying primary education courses do not have an A-level science qualification or above, which would indicate a lack of subject knowledge. Another reason could be that they had an adverse experience of learning science at secondary school.
Action
Reflecting on these words caused me to question: would these negative feelings impact the way that these students would teach science in the future? I was concerned that this cycle of negativity towards learning science would perpetuate, and so I decided to research ways to increase the science capital of Higher Education students. Jones and Spicer (2021) recommend that university lecturers adopt a “growth mindset” approach to positively influence students' motivation during science lectures. I incorporated the following science capital enhancing teaching practices into sessions:
- Hands-on learning with experiments and investigations
- Relating science to students' everyday experiences
- Encouraging students to make real-world applications
- Taking students on trips to science museums, to meet local scientists, and STEM ambassadors
Impact
As a result of these actions, student engagement in science sessions increased. Even students who had previously appeared disengaged became more forthcoming in sharing their ideas and experiences, and there was also a greater level of participation in activities. Students reported enjoying science lectures because they were “hands-on and practical”. Sessions became more inclusive and student-centred because they were encouraged to reflect on their own lives and make links to science. I hope that what follows these actions will be greater confidence when teaching science, and that students will incorporate the Science Capital Teaching Approach ideas into their own practice. My wish is that by increasing their personal science capital, students can increase the science capital of future generations.
Call to action
How do you view science? What could you do to increase your science capital and the science capital of others?
- Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (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.
- Chowdhuri, M., King, H. & Archer, L. (2021) Primary Science Capital Teaching Approach: teacher handbook. University College London.
- Godec, S., King, H., and Archer, L. (2017) 'The Science Capital Teaching Approach: engaging students with science, promoting social justice'. UCL Institute of Education. (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
- Jones, D. & Spicer, S. (2019) ‘Science capital in primary PGCE students: Factors influencing its development and its impact on science teaching’, Science Teacher Education, (85), 9–15.
- Jones, D. & Spicer, S. (2021) ‘One year on - science capital in primary PGCE students: Factors influencing its development and its impact on science teaching’, ASE International, (11), 20–26.
- Kontkanen, S., Koskela, T., Kanerva, O., Kärkkäinen, S., Waltzer, K., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2024). 'Science capital as a lens for studying science aspirations – a systematic review'. Studies in Science Education, 61(1), 89–115.