Preservice Teachers’ Uptake and Understanding of Funds of Knowledge in Elementary Science
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
McLaughlin and Barton (2013) found that PSTs used funds of knowledge as a 'hook' to initially interest students but rarely drew on these ways of knowing to help students make meaning of content.
“Furthermore, McLaughlin and Barton (2013) found that PSTs used funds of knowledge as a 'hook' to initially interest students but rarely drew on these ways of knowing to help students make meaning of content.”
From Exploring Students’ World: Leveraging Funds of Knowledge Through Virtual Community Explorations (2024) · cites this paper as McLaughlin & Barton, 2013
Some PSTs in McLaughlin and Barton's study maintained a deficit perspective despite preparation in theory and practice related to funds of knowledge.
“Some PSTs in the study also maintained a deficit perspective despite preparation in theory and practice related to funds of knowledge.”
From Exploring Students’ World: Leveraging Funds of Knowledge Through Virtual Community Explorations (2024) · cites this paper as McLaughlin & Barton, 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 38 · Cited by 50
- Authors
- McLaughlin, D. S., & Calabrese Barton, A.
- Affiliations
- Susquehanna University (US)
- Michigan State UniversityEast LansingMIUSA
- Corresponding author
- McLaughlin, David S.
- Venue
- Journal of Science Teacher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-02-16
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-36
- ISSN
- 1046-560X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1847
- OpenAlex
- W2065618280
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Science Teacher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Indigenous and Place-Based Education
- Keywords
- funds of knowledge, pre-service primary teachers, elementary science teaching, teacher understanding, science lesson planning, student interest in science, meaning-making, culturally responsive teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review