The Resources and Strategies Boys Use to Establish Status in a Junior School without Competitive Sport

The data in this paper comes from an ethnographically based study of Year 6 (10-11-year-old) boys in an English junior school. It investigates the resources and strategies used and created by the boys to classify themselves, and to construct and perform their masculinity in a tightly regulated school where competitive sport (including playground football) is prohibited for the majority of the school year. The paper considers the relationship between the formal school culture and informal pupil culture, and, in particular, the options open, limited and closed to the boys to construct their masculinities and establish status/prestige within their immediate peer group. One option open was being able to work hard in class without peer reprovement, but despite the limitation of competitive games/sport, the most favoured form of masculine status was still exemplified by embodied forms of athleticism and physicality. The paper also explores another way of gaining status, which was by a form of verbal abuse known as 'cussing': this was a pervasive and prevalent part of school life, and is viewed as another form of competitive, stylised performance.     

巨人的衰落

10年前,几乎所有人都相信网球的未来将被会大力发球的巨人主宰,但现在卡洛维奇和埃斯纳都还是二流选手,这当中到底发生了什么?有人开玩笑说:男子网球有三条铁律。第一,所有时代的伟大选手都有一手漂亮的单反,第二,他们都有一个贤内助(米尔卡?但布里吉特也算吗?),第三,他们都有炮弹发球。这里面听起来比较靠谱的仅仅是发球,作为全世界最好的选手和全世界最高的选手费德勒和卡洛维奇,我们可以拿他们的二十项技术指标做比较,卡洛维奇只有一项技术指标可以超过费德勒,那就是发球,这就使得卡洛维奇有机会在任何时候和费德勒较量一番,这就像拳击手有致命的重拳,网球选手有发球,就有了机会。     

Psychometric reevaluation of the scientific attitude inventory‐revised (SAI‐II)

The central purposes of this study were to review the development and evolution of the Scientific Attitude Inventory (SAI) and then reevaluate the psychometric properties of the revised form of the SAI, the Scientific Attitude Inventory II (SAI‐II). The SAI‐II was administered to a convenience sample of 543 middle and high school students from five teachers in four schools in four school districts in San Antonio, Texas, at the beginning of the 2004–2005 school year. Confirmatory factor analysis on the full data set failed to support the existence of a 12‐factor structure (as proposed by the scale developers) or a one‐factor structure. The data were then randomly divided into exploratory [exploratory factor analysis (EFA)] validation and confirmatory [confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)] cross‐validation sets. Exploratory and confirmatory models yielded a three‐factor solution that did not fit the data well [χ² (321) = 646, p < .001; RMSEA = .061 (.90 CI = .054–.068); and CFI = .81]. The three factors were labeled “Science is About Understanding and Explaining” (13 items), “Science is Rigid” (6 items), and “I Want to Be a Scientist” (8 items). The α‐coefficients for these three factors ranged from 0.59 to 0.85. Whether these identified subscales are valid will require independent investigation. In this sample, and consistent with prior publications, the SAI‐II in its current form did not have satisfactory psychometric properties and cannot be recommended for further use. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 600–616, 2008