In this article, I analyze teachers’ use of students’ everyday knowledge and experiences as resources for learning in educational dialogues. By analyzing video data of teachers’ attempts to contextualize instruction in naturalistic settings in a lower secondary school, I examine how teachers use such resources to support and guide student learning. By employing a situated approach to learning, I provide a turn-by-turn analysis of how teachers use students’ everyday knowledge as resources to socially construct knowledge when working with academic subject matter. The concepts of intercontextuality and positioning function as analytical tools that enable an analysis of the relationships between the use of everyday experiences and the social organization of participation during teachers’ instructional work. The findings show that attempts at contextualizing instruction were identified in many of the lessons. The findings also document that teachers face both challenges and opportunities when contextualizing instruction. A turn-by-turn analysis shows that the function of everyday experiences in educational dialogues depends on how such resources are mobilized, how they are brought into the conversations, as well as the roles assigned to students in the dialogues. In the article, issues contributing to the productive use of everyday resources in educational dialogues are displayed and discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.
Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time: Uses of intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 313–334.
Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bronkhorst, L. H., & Akkerman, S. F. (2016). At the boundary of school: Continuity and discontinuity in learning across contexts. Educational Research Review, 19, 18–35.
Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 17–34.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Cohen, L., Morrison, K., & Manion, L. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.
Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In M. S. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education: Selections (pp. 19–32). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dworin, J. E. (2006). The family stories project: Using funds of knowledge for writing. The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 510–520.
Engle, R. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.
Engle, R., Nguyen, P. D., & Mendelson, A. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: Initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instructional Science, 39(5), 603–628.
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153–181). New York: Academic Press.
Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, 1(2), 5–10.
Erstad, O., & Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floriani, A. (1993). Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, texts and contexts, content and meaning. Linguistics and Education, 5(3), 241–274.
Forman, E. A., & Ansell, E. (2002). Orchestrating the multiple voices and inscriptions of a mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), 251–274.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.
Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interpretive phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547.
Grossen, M., Zittoun, T., & Ros, J. (2012). Boundary crossing events and potential appropriation space in philosophy, literature and general knowledge. In E. Hjörne, G. van der Aalsvoort, & G. de Abreu (Eds.), Learning, social interaction and diversity: Exploring identities in school practices (pp. 15–33). Rotterdam: Springer.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Hantano, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1999). Commentary: Alternative perspectives on transfer and transfer studies. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 645–654.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles: Sage.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41(4), 397–420.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 409–430.
Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 666–677.
Hontvedt, M., & Arnseth, H. C. (2013). On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 89–112.
Hung, D., Lee, S.-S., & Lim, K. (2012). Teachers as brokers: Bridging formal and informal learning in the 21st century. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 71–89.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Jornet, A., & Steier, R. (2015). The matter of space: Bodily performances and the emergence of boundary objects during multidisciplinary design meetings. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(2), 129–151.
Krange, I., Moen, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Computer-based 3D simulation: A study of communication practices in a trauma team performing patient examination and diagnostic work. Instructional Science, 40(5), 829–847.
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning: From theory to practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Kyza, E. A. (2009). Middle-school students’ reasoning about alternative hypotheses in a scaffolded, software-based inquiry investigation. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 277–311.
Lantz-Andersson, A., Linderoth, J., & Säljö, R. (2009). What’s the problem? Meaning making and learning to do mathematical word problems in the context of digital tools. Instructional Science, 37(4), 325–343.
Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.
Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2002). Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices. Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 22(1), 57–82.
McIntyre, E., Rosebery, A. S., & González, N. (2001). Classroom diversity: Connecting curriculum to students’ lives. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., 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.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on natural occuring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 283–304). London: Sage.
Rajala, A., Kumpulainen, K., Hilppö, J., Paananen, M., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Connecting learning across school and out-of-school contexts: A review of pedagogical approaches. In O. Erstad, K. Kumpulainen, Å. Mäkitalo, K. C. Schrøder, P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, & T. Jóhannsdóttir (Eds.), Learning across contexts in the knowledge society (pp. 15–35). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100.
Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 145–161). London: Routledge.
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36.
Silseth, K. (2012). The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gaming context at school. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 63–84.
Silseth, K., & Arnseth, H. C. (2016): Frames for learning science: Analyzing learner positioning in a technology-enhanced learning environment. Learning, Media & Technology, 41(2), 396–415.
Silseth, K., & Gilje, Ø. (2017). Multimodal composition and assessment: A sociocultural perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1297292.
Strømme, T. A., & Furberg, A. (2015). Exploring teacher intervention in the intersection of digital resources, peer collaboration, and instructional design. Science Education, 99(5), 837–862.
Teo, P. (2008). Outside in/inside out: Bridging the gap in literacy education in Singapore classrooms. Language and Education, 22(6), 411–431.
van de Sande, C., & Greeno, J. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 1–44.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum.
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37.
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaitė, & E. Grace (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
I would like to thank the teacher and students who have opened up their classrooms and given me the opportunity to be part of their everyday practices in school, and to learn about how students and teachers talk and construct meaning and learning together. I would also like to thank Anniken Furberg, Magnus Hontvedt, Rolf Steier for valuable comments on earlier drafts, and the anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions. Thanks to Karina Rose Mahan for support when I worked on translating the extracts from Norwegian to English. This work is funded by the Norwegian Research Council (the PRAKUT programme, grant number 218262).
Appendix: transcription conventions
Appendix: transcription conventions
About this article
Cite this article
Silseth, K. Students’ everyday knowledge and experiences as resources in educational dialogues. Instr Sci 46, 291–313 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9429-x
- Contextualizing instruction
- Everyday knowledge
- Interaction analysis
- Sociocultural theory
- Educational dialogue