Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 13–36 | Cite as

Preservice Teachers’ Uptake and Understanding of Funds of Knowledge in Elementary Science

Article

Abstract

In this manuscript, we use a “learning to notice” framework to suggest that preservice elementary teachers bring a range of interpretations and responses to their students’ funds of knowledge and science teaching and learning. By examining data from three sections of an elementary methods course, we find that preservice teachers recognized students’ funds of knowledge, assigned value to them, and took account of these resources for science learning in their planning. While preservice teachers most often described funds of knowledge as a “hook” to gain and sustain students’ interest in the science classroom, they also interpreted and utilized funds of knowledge in other ways, including as substantive contributions to meaning making and positioning students as having expert knowledge.

Keywords

Funds of knowledge Teacher education Science 

References

  1. Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buck, P., & Skilton-Sylvester, P. (2005). Preservice teachers enter urban communities: Coupling funds of knowledge research and critical pedagogy in teacher education. In N. González, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (pp. 213–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Supplement, 50, 291–299.Google Scholar
  4. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Daiute, C. (1993). Youth genres and literacy: Links between sociocultural and developmental theories. Language Arts, 70(5), 402–416.Google Scholar
  6. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. García, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  10. González, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. C. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutierrez, K. D. (2002). Studying cultural practices in urban learning communities. Human Development, 45, 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12–21.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, C. D., & Majors, Y. J. (2003). ‘Heading up the street:’ Localised opportunities for shared constructions of knowledge. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality?’”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moje, E., McIntosh Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates’ bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 707–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patton, M. O. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Rosebery, A., & Hardicourt-Barnes, J. (2006). Using diversity as a science strength in the classroom: The benefits of science talks. In K. Worth, M. Klentschy, & R. Douglas (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rosebery, A. S., & Warren, B. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching science to English language learners. Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schultz, K., Jones-Walker, C. E., & Chikkatur, A. P. (2008). Listening to students, negotiating beliefs: Preparing teachers for urban classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(2), 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An elementary school teacher’s thinking. Science Education, 90, 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warren, B., & Ogonowski, M. (2005). “Everyday” and “scientific”: Rethinking dichotomies in modes of thinking and science learning. In R. Nemirovsky, A. S. Rosebery, J. Solomon, & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics (pp. 119–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (Eds.). (2002). Learning for life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Susquehanna UniversitySelinsgroveUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations