Factors Influencing the Formation of the Educational Choices of Individuals of Different Social Origin: A Review of Recent Sociological Scientific Literature

Abstract

The social and cultural origins of students' families contribute to the formation of the students' own culture through the accumulation and engraving of a system of predispositions that influence their educational success. The purpose of this study, which focuses on a review of recent sociological literature, is to explore and highlight the factors that define the choices of individuals from different social backgrounds regarding their educational future. The analysis of the research findings of the relevant scientific papers highlights the impact of socio-economic and cultural factors on the shaping of the educational choices of individuals of different social origin, bringing at the same time to the fore issues of social and educational inequalities. In particular, the social class of origin of young people, which produces its own class dispositions, the family habitus, the volume of cultural, social and economic capital that the student's family possesses, as well as the way in which teachers, who also have their own system of predispositions within the educational institutions where they work, approach young people of different social origin tend to make a significant contribution to the choices that define the educational paths of young people.

Typology of habitus in education: Findings from a review of qualitative studies

“…Search terms in titles and abstracts included combinations of relevant keywords, namely habitus AND ( achievement OR performance OR results OR attainment OR course grade OR test OR school OR learning ). This search was complemented by manual searches of studies (a) published in four journals that publish qualitative studies on habitus in educational research ( Sociology of Education , British Journal of Sociology of Education , Critical Studies in Education , Discourse ); and (b) listed in reviews on Bourdieu’s theory of practice (e.g., Choi et al, 2019 ; Spiliopoulou et al, 2018 ; Tan, 2017 ). These searches returned 1,439 potential studies for analysis.…”

“…Some scholars compare habitus with other conceptual tools (Collet, 2009 ) or discuss methodological issues involving habitus in research (Mu, 2020 ). Others limit their review of habitus to specific fields (e.g., institutional habitus; Byrd, 2019 ), sub-fields (e.g., digital learning; Ignatow & Robinson, 2017 ), or outcomes (e.g., educational choices; Spiliopoulou et al, 2018 ).…”