Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Vygotsky's Legacy and the Concept of Funds of Knowledge

Fri, April 28, 4:05 to 6:05pm, Grand Hyatt San Antonio, Floor: Second Floor, Lone Star Ballroom Salon C

Abstract

It has been over 20 year since the term funds of knowledge—the existing resources, knowledge, and skills embedded in students and their families (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992)—emerged in the literature. The approach, rooted in anthropological studies of working-class Latina/o households and on some of Vygotsky’s concepts and ideas, documented the varied bodies of knowledge that underlie families’ productive activities. The term was very well received in the field of education, particularly in the K-12 context. Indeed, the research on funds of knowledge has become a standard reference to signal a ‘sociocultural’ orientation in education that seeks to build strategically on the experiences, resources, and knowledge of families and children, especially those from low-income neighborhoods (Moll, Soto-Santiago, & Schwartz, 2013). After decades of research, what we know is that the funds of knowledge generated, accumulated, and transmitted by students (and their families and communities) bring ample possibilities for facilitating the success of underrepresented students education. Indeed, it is the connection between teachers (and their pedagogical approaches), and families’ sociocultural, linguistic, and intellectual resources what makes the funds of knowledge approach appealing, relevant, meaningful, possible, and very much needed. Since the concept appeared in the literature, the scholarship on funds of knowledge has inspired a wealth of research and practice in many different places throughout the world and fields. One of the tensions surrounding funds of knowledge relates to the fact that many scholars have used the notion as “a theoretical validation of the social and cultural capital of communities that had been viewed without resources or capital of any kind” (González et al., 2011, p. 482). Furthermore, researchers argue that the funds of knowledge approach re-conceptualizes communities from a strength-based perspective, seeing the richness of knowledge and history within economic marginality, and providing a productive cultural setting that has been traditionally conceived as deprived (González et al., 2011). As Kiyama and Rios-Aguilar (forthcoming) argue, this particular interpretation and utilization of funds of knowledge is problematic because it implies that all students (and their families and communities) have some forms of capital, when in fact, that is not the case. Consequently, as argued by Kiyama and Rios-Aguilar (forthcoming), while funds of knowledge offers many theoretical and pedagogical uses, limitations remain. First, this asset-based approach does not account for larger systemic issues of power or social conflict within educational systems (Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, forthcoming). Second, a funds of knowledge approach does not offer a more careful and elaborated analysis of social class (Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, forthcoming). Third, funds of knowledge has been critiqued for its limited methodological approaches and reliance on adult household practices as the primary unit of analysis (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). Fourth, there seems to be discrepancies in the way funds of knowledge are understood and applied in educational research (Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, forthcoming).

Author