Using students' lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An elementary school teacher's thinking

Using Students’ LivedExperiences in an Urban ScienceClassroom: An Elementary SchoolTeacher’s Thinking

BHASKAR RAJ UPADHYAYUniversity of Minnesota, Curriculum and Instruction, 159 Pillsbury Dr., Minneapolis,MN 55455, USA

Received 10 November 2004; revised 19 March 2005; accepted 23 May 2005

DOI 10.1002/sce.20095Published online 21 December 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the use of students’ lived experiences in an urbanelementary science classroom. Students bring different funds of knowledge that are accu-mulated through their lived experiences into the classroom, and I examine what those fundsof knowledge mean to an elementary science teacher working in an urban school. I describehow a female elementary teacher integrates her life experiences with that of her students,and utilizes those experiences to teach meaningful science. This paper also discusses whatit means to students when their lived experiences are the part of science learning. I alsoinclude a description of how the Linking Food and the Environment (LiFE) curriculum canprovide a framework to teach science using students’ lived experiences. C© 2005 WileyPeriodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:94–110, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Many students in urban schools question science learning because the science has littleto do with their personal lives (Fusco, 2001). Research shows that these urban studentshave to see some kind of connection between their science learning and lived experiences,and teachers have to create an environment in the classroom where such connections canbe made. If science teaching is to make any difference in urban students’ lives, teachinghas to take place in the context of students’ experiences (Barton, 2001; Delpit, 1988, 1995;Freeman, 1994; Gallagher & Tobin, 1987; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Lave &Wegner, 1993). Since most classroom environments are different from the real-life environ-ment of the students, teachers have a great influence on how students learn and make senseof science concepts (Lave & Wagner, 1993; Resnick, 1987).

In my own research I look at students’ needs, interests and community, and question whatis most important when teaching science to students. What does a classroom that promotes

Correspondence to: Bhaskar Raj Upadhyay; e-mail: [email protected]

C© 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

STUDENTS’ LIVED EXPERIENCES IN URBAN SCIENCE CLASSROOM 95

students’ lived experiences as a part of science learning look like? What role do a teacher’slived experiences play in creating a science classroom that promotes sharing of students’lived experiences as a part of science teaching and learning? One goal of this study is togather the thoughts and experiences of an urban female elementary school teacher who usesstudents’ lived experiences as a part of her science instruction.

First, I summarize research findings on issues facing urban schools, findings on teachingscience relevant to students’ lived experiences, and findings on funds of knowledge. I exam-ine how the research supports meaningful science learning. Second, I present an overview ofmy methodological approach, including how I generated the data. Third, I briefly describethe Linking Food and the Environment curriculum in order to provide an overview of thecontext of this study. Finally, I share findings through a case study analysis of Jane, whoparticipated in the Linking Food and the Environment curriculum implementation program.More specifically I articulate (a) how the LiFE curriculum provided a necessary tool andframework for Jane1 to utilize students’ lived experiences as an integral part of scienceteaching; (b) how Jane, an elementary school teacher, identifies her lived experiences withthat of the students in her fourth-grade classroom and integrates these two experiencesduring science teaching in a classroom with minority students.

ISSUES FACING URBAN SCHOOLS

Some of the major features of urban areas include (a) a high ethnic minority popula-tion with little education, (b) homes of large groups of immigrant families, and (c) a largepopulation with high poverty level (Lollock, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau, 1998). There-fore, students in many urban schools come from highly diverse ethnic, social, and eco-nomic backgrounds (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990;National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Many urban schools lack resources to hire teach-ers who are more proficient and experienced in dealing with urban diversity and the demandsof urban schools. Research has shown that many urban schools and curricula value middleand upper class knowledge and culture that students from lower socioeconomic and immi-grant classes do not possess. Thus, schools that serve lower income and immigrant studentsfind that their students achieve lower academic success (Bourdieu, 1992; Eckert, 1989).Teachers who do not have multicultural understanding and effective multicultural teach-ing practices may consider those students to be academically poor, and may spend moretime in classroom management than in instruction (Barton & Yang, 2000; Lee & Fradd,1998).

Many urban schools also have to deal with students from communities that are socially,culturally, and linguistically diverse. The instructional demands placed on the teachers thatwork in these schools are varied and challenging. Teachers have to work countless hoursto support the learning of these students. Many teachers burn out, leave urban schools, andmove to suburbs where instructional demands seem to be much less challenging.

In many urban schools, the school curriculum is enacted at a minimal level with verylittle student participation. Equipment, textbooks, and supplies are scarce, and teachersand students lack motivation to engage in meaningful learning activities (Tobin, Seiler, &Walls, 1999). Low academic demand and lack of well-educated teachers have seriouslyjeopardized the opportunity for many hardworking students to attend college. Many urbanschools, thus, are not able to support students from working-class families to succeed andescape circumstances that are framed by poverty.

1 Jane pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the participant.

96 UPADHYAY

MAKING SCIENCE TEACHING RELEVANT TO STUDENTS’LIVED EXPERIENCES

Because teachers are pressured to generate good results in high-stakes tests, urbanschoolteachers often concentrate their efforts on classroom management, with little regardfor hands-on critical thinking activities and students’ sociocultural contexts (Brickhouse,1990; Haberman, 1991). Teachers in urban schools spend most of their time teachingknowledge-based science in a learning environment that ignores students’ experiences andprovides few occasions for conceptual development (Anyon, 1997; Carlson, 1997; Kahle,Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000).

Many urban schools are also culturally and ethnically diverse. Students bring their homeculture into the classroom to make sense of their learning, and teachers have to accom-modate these lived experiences for effective teaching (McCarty et al., 1991). Conversely,teachers should also promote “connected science” (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001, p. 895),where scientific knowledge is applied to students’ real-life situations. In this regard, Mc-Carty et al. (1991) and Michaels’s (1981) studies have suggested that students who developa meaningful context for absorbing new information based on their personal experiencesalso improve their critical thinking and problem-solving skills. According to Fusco (2001),students in urban schools learn science best by understanding their own experiences andintegrating science into the larger community. Fusco also argued that urban students’ inter-est in learning science has to come from their own “concerns, interests, and experiences”(p. 871). For these students, learning science will not be a high priority unless sciencelearning is an extension of their community activity. Teachers have to think about whatstudents want to learn so that science learning makes a useful contribution to their socialenvironment and personal experiences.

Studies in urban education have also shown that cultural diversity, learning diversity, andcurriculum influence classroom-learning outcomes (Barton, 1998a, 1998b; Delpit, 1995;Fusco, 2001; Hillocks, 1998; Landson-Billings, 1995). Teachers have to create a classroomenvironment that allows students to participate in a diverse setting while allowing teachersto incorporate students’ lived experiences as a part of science learning (Atwater, 1996;Kahle et al., 2000; Oakes, 1990; Oakes, Gamaron, & Page, 1992). However, this typeof classroom, where students are encouraged to bring in their lived experiences as a partof science learning, is very hard to find in urban schools that support minority students.Teachers who use students’ lived experiences during science teaching have to expend moreeffort and time in order to successfully integrate science with students’ experiences.

FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE

I am using Moll and Greenberg’s (1990) definition of funds of knowledge. Accordingthese researchers, funds of knowledge refer to knowledge and skills gained through historicaland cultural interactions that are essential for individuals to function appropriately in his/hercommunity. Funds of knowledge include knowledge about any activities or interactions thattake place in homes, for example cooking, farming, construction, cultural practices, andfinances to name a few. Studies of Hispanic students and teachers have also shown that fundsof knowledge are abundant and diverse in children because children actively participate inmultitude of diverse activities in their contexts (Moll et al., 1992; Velez-lbanez & Greenberg,1992). Researchers argue that teachers and students can use funds of knowledge to engagein critical pedagogy based on students’ resources rather than on their deficits (Gonzalez &Amanti, 1992; Gonzalez & Moll, 2002; Moll et al., 1992; Norma et al., 1993; Velez-lbanez &Greenberg 1992). When teachers are disconnected from the sources of students’ funds of


knowledge, classroom instructions tend to be less transformative and participatory and moredidactic (Moll et al., 1992). Also many teachers who are disconnected from students’ fundsof knowledge, falsely assume that students from poor families bring “poor” and low qualityexperiences in the classroom. On the contrary, children’s funds of knowledge are complexand layered because their knowledge is based on multifacet relationships in their homes.Teachers who are able to bridge students’ funds of knowledge with classroom instructionsprovide the most meaningful learning experiences to their students. In a study of Puenteteachers and students, Gonzalez and Moll (2002) claim that “many local funds of knowledgecan be utilized to validate students’ identities as knowledgeable individuals who can usesuch knowledge as a foundation for future learning” (p. 623).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This paper will answer the following three questions related to science education in anurban school:

1. What does Jane’s life story tell us about her views on teaching, her experiences, andscience teaching that is relevant to students and their lived experiences?

2. What student experiences does Jane identify as important funds of knowledge inteaching the LiFE curriculum?

3. How does Jane connect student experiences to her own and integrate them into herscience teaching?

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The Linking Food and the Environment program in an urban city in the southern UnitedStates provided the context of this study. The data presented in this paper were collectedas part of a larger study during the 2002–2004 school years. That study involved eightelementary school teachers from the fourth and fifth grades who used the LiFE curriculumlessons thrice a week during their regular science class. This paper uses the data collectedfrom only one teacher, Jane, over the period of 2002–2004. Data collected from otherteachers who participated in the LiFE curriculum are not the part of this paper.

Jane teaches fourth-grade students in a public school that participated in the LiFE pro-gram. The school was located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood with a largenumber of Hispanic students.

In order to understand Jane’s use of students’ lived experiences in science lessons, aswell as Jane’s own life experiences and their influence on her science teaching, I chose casestudy methodology. The case study provides detailed insight into processes, decisions, andevents that influence the actions of the subject under scrutiny. The case study generates richdetails and illuminates nuances that can get lost in a larger study. Many types of data werecollected in order to broaden the reach of the study. The data were collected in the form ofvideotapes of science lessons, audiotapes of interviews, and field notes. As a researcher, Ivideotaped eight science lessons during regular science classes in the 2003 academic year.Four of those lessons were drawn from the LiFE curriculum, and the other four from the FullOption Science System (FOSS) curriculum (FOSS is a district-mandated curriculum). Bydocumenting classroom interactions based on two different curricula, I was able to pinpointwhen Jane used students’ lived experiences in both kinds of science lessons. I conducted 12interviews at the end of the school day based on the videotaped lessons. Seven interviewswere based on the LiFE lessons and five interviews were based on the FOSS lessons. Eachinterview lasted from 45 min to 90 min. Jane was encouraged to relay her answers in terms

98 UPADHYAY

of specific experiences, events, and lessons that I had videotaped. Interviews were basedon Fowler’s (1993) criteria of using open-ended and probing questions in the languagethat the teachers understood. The semistructured interviews included questions such as:What are your reasons for using students’ experiences in your science instructions? Whydo you want students to share their experiences during science lessons? How do you decidewhen to use students’ experiences (inputs) during science lessons or the LiFE lessons?How have your schooling experiences in diverse cultures shaped your teaching or preparedyou as a teacher? Describe your experience with the LiFE curriculum. How has the LiFEcurriculum influenced your science teaching? These interviews provided data that showedwhy and for what purpose Jane allowed students to bring in their lived experiences during aparticular science lesson. I also believe that the interview format helped to document Jane’sthinking and decisions about using students’ lived experiences; the information I gatheredin interviews could greatly improve the validity and reliability of the data presented in thestudy.

During an interview, I showed Jane preselected sections of the videotapes. This methodprovided a context for Jane to recall the actions taken and the reasons for those actions.Jane was also permitted to view other sections of the video that she thought appropriate forin-depth understanding. Therefore, the interview allowed me to understand Jane’s thinkingprocesses with little outside interpretation. Due to various school meetings such as parent–teacher meetings and tutoring, four of the twelve interviews took place two days after thelessons were videotaped. Most of the interviews lasted between 2–3 h. The interviewswere recorded and transcribed by me. Sections of all the videotapes were also transcribedto match the sections that were used during the interviews. The videotape transcriptions areutilized in this paper to show the nature of classroom discussions that took place when Janeused students’ lived experiences in her science lessons. Jane’s classrooms were observed42 times over a period of 1 year during the lessons based on LiFE curriculum, and alsoduring the lessons based on FOSS curriculum. The lessons were observed an average ofthree times each month and were chosen randomly without prior notice to Jane. Twenty sixLiFE lessons and sixteen FOSS lessons were observed.

RESEARCHER AND PARTICIPANT RELATION

I was the LiFE program coordinator, and I participated in the following activities:

• Conducted workshops for both teachers and parents;• Observed the teacher when teaching from the LiFE curriculum, providing pedagog-

ical, management, logistical and content support, and feedback;• Supported the teacher during various activities, allowing the class to be more inter-

active and participatory;• Interviewed the teachers to get feedback and help improve the LiFE lessons;• Interacted informally with the students during and after the LiFE lessons;• Helped the elementary teachers in the schools to prepare for the annual science fairs

by providing resources to the students, and helped the teachers to design sciencemodels that students were interested in showing at the science fair.

Jane and I maintained a very respectful and cordial relationship. This relationship allowedme to interact, observe, and interview Jane more freely. Jane was very open and willing toshare personal experiences in detail. Jane also allowed me to videotape and observe lessonswithout prior notice, and I believe that this flexibility generated much more reliable data.


LINKING FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT CURRICULUM:SCIENCE FOR URBAN STUDENTS

Linking Food and the Environment curriculum was designed to teach life and environmentsciences to students in inner city urban schools. The curriculum is divided into five modules,and each module is divided into several lessons. All the modules and the lessons are basedon the theme of “food”: farming, harvesting, canning, and the environmental effects ofthose processes (see www.tc.edu/centers/life for sample lessons). The first two modulesare covered in the fourth grade, and the rest of the modules are used in the fifth grade.The LiFE curriculum was developed at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.The Science Education and Nutrition and Health departments at Teachers College jointlydeveloped this elementary school science curriculum for urban schools. The curriculum isbased on the framework of the QuEST Learning Cycle. According to the QuEST learningcycle,

exploring and experimenting are more fun for children and easier to do, but [it is] duringthe phases of Building theories/constructs and Applying to life that the children refine theirabilities to construct explanations and theories about what they have learned from theirexploration and experimentation, and apply their learning to their everyday lives. Teachers’special attention is particularly needed in these two phases. (LiFE Curriculum, p. 1)

The LiFE curriculum is designed to provide science learning in the following ways:(a) active hands-on activities, (b) critical thinking and conceptual learning opportunities(AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996; O’Neill & Polman, 2004), (c) encouraging students to sharepersonal experiences as a part of science-learning process through questioning and dis-cussions (Boulton & Panizzon, 1998; Brickhouse, 1994, Landson-Billings, 1995; Staver,1998), and (d) parents as partners in science learning.

The LiFE curriculum provides an active and engaging classroom environment whereteachers can teach science that is inclusive and mindful of students’ lived experiences. TheLiFE curriculum also allows teachers to incorporate students’ dispositions about science,the meaning of science, and the role of science in their community. Students contribute tothe process of knowledge construction during the LiFE lessons because they are encouragedand rewarded for their active participation in the scientific discussion. The contributions ofstudents include their experiences with the kinds of food they eat at home, the harvesting ofcrops in their backyard, or at their grandparents’ homes in foreign countries such as Mexico,El Salvador, and India.

The LiFE curriculum, during its implementation phases, involved parents as a part oftheir children’s science learning. Parents, like teachers, participated in six workshops tolearn about the LiFE curriculum. The parents attended the same workshops as teachersand engaged in all the activities of the LiFE curriculum. Parents were engaged in hands-onactivities and discussions so that they understood the content and the nature of science.Some of the parents who participated in the workshops also volunteered to help teachers inthe science classrooms. Most parents acted as classroom managers and participated in thegroup discussions by sharing their lived experiences and the knowledge that they gainedfrom the LiFE workshops.

School curriculum specialists were also invited to participate in the workshops, and mostof them did attend. Their active participation helped form a broader coalition of scienceinterest groups in the schools, ensuring the priority of inquiry-oriented hands-on sciencelessons. Some curriculum specialists participated during science lessons when the lessonwas based on the LiFE curriculum. Therefore, the implementation of the LiFE curriculum

100 UPADHYAY

turned into a joint venture between researchers (curriculum developers), teachers, parents,and school administration. Everybody had equal stake in the curriculum’s success.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS

I used the grounded theory development (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) approach to analyze thedata by creating categories and themes based on interview transcripts, classroom videotapes,field notes, and observations (Upadhyay, Barton, & Zahur, 2005). In order to generate indextrees (Upadhyay et al., 2005) to provide the framework for further data analysis, I usedNVivo, a qualitative data analysis software. I generated free nodes based on the themes andcategories. I connected these free nodes into “index trees” and created four major “indextrees.” In this paper I focus on the first and the second trees. I followed Upadhyay et al.’s(2005) method of generating trees.

The first tree was on the “students’ lived experiences and science teaching” and involvedteachers’ instruction in science to recognize sociocultural differences among students. Thistree was divided into science curriculum (such as the LiFE and FOSS curricula, construc-tivist learning, and community-based learning), personal experiences (such as Jane’s livedexperiences, students’ sociocultural diversity, and immigrant family experiences), immi-grant families (such as parents working multiple low-paying jobs at odd hours, and riskof being caught by law enforcement after 9/11), and the needs of families and children inpoverty. The second tree was named “social scaffolding.” This tree was divided into thenature of classroom discussions and teacher’s thinking and decision making while usingstudents’ lived experiences in the science classroom. The third tree was themed how a“high-stakes test influences science instructions.” This tree was divided into administrativepressures, teaching to the test, and content mastery versus conceptual development. Thefourth tree was categorized “science process skills” and grouped around a teacher’s per-ceived scientific method for science investigations, passing the high-stakes test, and studentability.

The nodes in the first tree provided answers to Jane’s personal life, her experiences indifferent cultures, her beliefs about teaching minority and ethnically and culturally diversechildren, and her growth as a teacher. The first tree also answered why Jane wants to developa connected science curriculum with the help of the LiFE curriculum. In addition, the firsttree helped to answer the sources of students’ funds of knowledge, how students view theirfunds of knowledge in relation to science, and how Jane uses students’ lived experiencesand funds of knowledge during the LiFE lessons. The nodes in the second tree answeredquestions about Jane’s use of students’ lived experiences, students’ funds of knowledge,and the reasons for using those funds of knowledge in her science instructions. The firstand the second trees also provided answers to how Jane connects her own lived experienceswith that of the students’ during her science instructions.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This investigation was limited to Jane, a unique teacher, who is dedicated to teach-ing science in order to make a difference in students’ lives. The narrow focus limits thegeneralizability of the study. This study was also limited to the curriculum implementationprogram in which Jane participated. Jane used many aspects of the LiFE curriculum to makeher science lessons much more constructivist and inclusive of students’ lived experiences,in contrast to the normal science classes that one sees in many poor urban schools. Theinvestigation pertains only to urban schools with a high minority and low socioeconomicstudent population.


FINDINGS

A Brief Portrait of Jane

I conjecture that Jane’s personal life shaped her beliefs, classroom practices, and herthinking and decision processes about building a science classroom that supported bothstudents’ lived experiences and meaningful science teaching (Lee, 1999). Jane’s brief por-trait permits us to understand her beliefs, thinking, decisions, knowledge, and experiences.This portrait also provides an accurate representation of ways in which Jane constructs,maintains, evaluates, and changes her understanding of self and her teaching and teachingenvironments (Pajares, 1992). In this section, I present Jane’s own experiences of learningand teaching science and her views of effective urban science curriculum, the purposes andgoals of science education for children of a minority population, and the role of minoritystudents’ lived experiences in her science teaching.

Jane’s Experiences as a Student in Different Cultures. Jane is a fourth-grade ele-mentary teacher in her early 50s. She has taught for 4 years in an urban elementary schoolin a poor Hispanic neighborhood in the southern United States.

Except for a few demonstrations and the collecting of shrubs, flowers, and rocks, Janerecalled doing very little science in her own elementary years. She remembered some scienceactivities from middle school. Those science lessons were teacher-led demonstrations wheretime was spent “filling up worksheets and writing notes.” During high school she did nottake science because she believed that she was “not good in science to do well.”

Her father’s job in the U.S. Air Force took Jane to different parts of the United States andabroad. Jane remembered herself as a child who always “ended up in an unknown nationamong people who looked different and spoke different tongues.” Jane graduated from highschool while she was in Germany. She remembered her years abroad with fondness:

I got to see what other people looked like, what they did, and how they talked. It was a greatopportunity for me to learn about others. The early exposure that I got to the diversity mademe appreciate, admire, understand, and respect what others knew. I really enjoyed beingaround those who looked different than my family and I. I’m different from many otherpeople who live in [my current town] because of my early experiences.

Jane reported that her experience made her “a better teacher and definitely a betterscience teacher, a teacher who is more sympathetic to not-so-normal (both different frommainstream and special needs) students.” She also believed that her schooling around theworld was fragmented but enriched her understanding of other people. The dispositions thatmany different students brought into the classrooms made her appreciate the importance ofacknowledging differences. She remembered that she could share her experience with herclassmates and made them feel awed with new information, and she felt awed by other’sknowledge too. She believed that diverse experiences in the class facilitate better learningthrough increased ownership of knowledge that is constructed in the classroom environment.

As an undergraduate, Jane studied science for only two semesters, covering some pre-liminary physical science, life science, astronomy, and earth science. When Jane receivedher teacher certification, she felt that she was “not well prepared to do science with lotsof hands-on activities.” She also recognized that she needed to work harder on her sci-ence lessons because she did not have enough content knowledge to lead inquiry-basedscience lessons. Clearly Jane’s positive experiences in diverse linguistic and social class-room settings motivated her to be a culturally and socially sensitive science teacher. Thisis consistent with Moll et al. (1992) and Gonzalez and Moll’s (2002) findings that teachers

102 UPADHYAY

who are familiar with students’ home experiences tend to use students’ funds of knowledgeas resources to prepare and deliver their classroom instructions.

Jane’s Growth as a Teacher and Becoming an Inclusive Teacher. Jane startedout as a substitute teacher and continued for about 7 years, teaching science, mathematics,and history to elementary school kids. She liked this job but worked part-time in order totake care of her children at home. She learned most of her classroom management andteaching skills while substitute teaching.

During these years she also saw her daughter struggle with science. Her daughter grad-uated from a “poor public school with hardly any good teachers and resources for sciencelearning that prepared competent science students.” She saw her daughter struggle in collegebiology classes where “she couldn’t perform experiments well in the lab; couldn’t under-stand what the professors taught despite extra tutoring.” Her daughter was forced to leavescience and major in mathematics because she did not have good preparation to succeed atthe college level. Jane now believes that her “students got to learn science in better ways.”

Jane started teaching in her current school in 1999. She reported that her students werevery diverse ethnically but at the same time brought “many new things in to the classroom.”She has found that students [have] “so many different experiences, ideas, views, and knowl-edge that I should use them in my teaching.” She expressed her thinking about students’experiences as a “tool that [can] enhance my own learning as well as other students’ learningof science, history, or anything. . . They are eager to learn and share what they know and Ido the same. My thinking about what decisions that I have to make in science classes [is]many times based on what my kids bring in the class.” She stressed, “If students from poorfamilies do not get the opportunity to learn and be open to new ideas through sharing theirexperiences and knowledge, then I don’t think the nation can expect scientifically literate,college-bound science students.”

Jane is a self-learner. She seeks new ideas, new ways to teach, and strives to know moreabout effective teaching. She does not feel that she has had enough science training, butshe thrives on dynamic interactions in the classroom. She is very comfortable with thechaotic and noisy nature of science activities that involve young students. She expressedher belief that science classes are supposed to be full of interactions and questions: “Iwant my students to think, share, and question each other’s answers and findings. I wantthem to act like scientists. I want them to fail and rediscover what the reasons were fortheir failed experiments.” Jane’s desire to allow her students to explore science in an openenvironment shows her commitment to teaching science as advocated by recent reforms,national benchmarks, and good science-teaching practices.

Jane’s Experience with the LiFE Curriculum and Her Thinking About Connec-ted Science Curriculum. Jane saw the LiFE curriculum in a different light than theFOSS curriculum. The LiFE curriculum is what she was looking for in a curriculum: “Iwant science curriculum that allow[s] me to be open and free to bring new concepts andcontents. The LiFE curriculum help[s] to bring students in the process of learning as well asmanaging the day-to-day curriculum.” For her, having students as a “part of” the microcur-riculum is a great achievement in teaching: “I [look] at student input in my curriculum asa vehicle to boost confidence and an excitement to learn science.” Jane believed that therewere many good features in the school curriculum, such as inquiry-based instruction. Atthe same time, the FOSS curriculum did not include students’ lived experiences in waysthat the LiFE curriculum did.

Jane believes that the LiFE curriculum provides students with an opportunity to bescientists through the QuEST cycle. She described this part of the curriculum as a way


to help students understand the many aspects of doing science, as well as learn from the“scientific errors” they make in the experiments. “[The] QuEST cycle allows students tolearn that errors in science are an integral part of learning. . .scientists learn from errors anddiscover new ways to answer a question that [scientists] are interested in.” Because Janeallows sufficient room for student input, she models a constructivist curriculum.

Jane believes that students should be provided with many science concepts so that theycan understand the relationships between them and be able to use them in meaningful ways:

Many ideas, concepts, and knowledge are shared during my science class. I like to intro-duce new concepts and elaborate on the ones that I think are important for students toknow. . .many science concepts are introduced because they are important for [statewidehigh-stakes tests], too.

Jane reported a need for new concepts that can enhance students’ science understandingwithout weakening their desire to discover more about science. Jane is a caring scienceteacher with a strong commitment to help her students excel in science. While she admitsthat she is not an expert in science content, she is a passionate science teacher who providesa nurturing social environment in which to learn and do science. Jane portrays herself as ateacher who seeks growth by taking professional development classes in science content aswell as pedagogy. Jane also presents herself as a teacher who enjoys a discourse-orientedscience classroom where students can find meanings in their lived experiences and discussthose experiences in a rewarding environment. Urban teachers like Jane are very few andfar between, but teachers like her can make a positive difference in marginalized students’school lives and can positively influence those students’ science-learning habits and attitudestoward science.

What Student Experiences Does Jane Identify as Important Fundsof Knowledge in Teaching the LiFE Curriculum?

I believe that a teacher’s “ability to utilize, identify, and connect with the social andcultural resources of their students” (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002; Tobin, Roth, & Zimmerman,2001, p. 943) helps a teacher to avoid the pitfalls of an exclusionary curriculum (Eisenhart,Finkel, & Marion, 1996). When a teacher applies students’ funds of knowledge to a lessonplan, that teacher helps to transform an exclusionary curriculum into an inclusive one (Mollet al., 1992; Norma et al., 1993; Velez-lbanez and Greenberg’s, 1992). Students’ knowledgethen becomes an everyday instructional practice of the teacher.

When students bring their experiences into science classes, teachers try to make decisionsbased on the curriculum at hand, student ability, and administrative demands related tohigh-stakes test. A teacher may decide to allow students’ lived experiences to take placein the science lessons (a) when students bring in new ideas or questions that necessitateexplanations or the introduction of new science concepts and (b) when teachers think orbelieve that they need to introduce new science concepts. A science teacher’s decisions areimportant because during teaching, students bring many experiences, ideas, questions, andknowledge from beyond the classroom; teachers have to include these experiences in waysthat help students understand, participate, and experience science in a meaningful ways(Barton & Yang, 2000; Oakes, 1985, 1990, 2000).

Jane made her students feel that their questions, ideas, experiences, and knowledge werean integral part of science learning. Jane wants her students to learn as many concepts orways to understand science concepts as possible by utilizing students’ lived experiences asimportant funds of science knowledge. For instance, during the sixth videotaped science

104 UPADHYAY

lesson Jane was teaching “what [do] plants need to grow?” from the LiFE curriculum. Shewas discussing how plants need carbon dioxide gas to make food. One of the studentsshared that plants could survive without air because bean sprouts could grow in a cupboardwhere there is hardly any air. He added that at home his grandmother uses different seedsand sprouts them by soaking the seeds overnight and then packing them in a cloth whichshe puts away in a dark place for couple of days. Jane then used this student’s funds ofknowledge on seed germination experience to explain seed germination processes and whatkind of gas animals and plants need to survive. She clarified that living things need oxygento breathe. Jane also discussed that air is a mixture of various gases, and living things takein air but only use oxygen.

Jane made sure that students understood very clearly that oxygen is the only gas that sup-ports life. Students asked Jane why they should not say “air” when talking about breathing.Students commented that everybody breathes air to live, and in fish tanks machines are usedto pump air in to keep the fish alive. Jane used their knowledge and explained that animals donot use air while breathing---just the oxygen gas that is present in the air. Jane demonstratedthat when a burning candle was covered with a glass jar, after a while the candle went outbecause there was no oxygen left to produce energy (burning of the candle). Similarly, sheexplained that breathing produces energy when oxygen mixes with food. Later she evokedthis discussion to explain that foods have energy. The following day Jane used the “peanutburning” activity from the LiFE curriculum to further elaborate the concept of breathing,oxygen, and energy. Jane also used the QuEST learning cycle to theorize the results fromthe candle activity and applied the theory to understand “peanut burning” and energy. Janebelieves that connecting different concepts with students’ lived experiences to understandone science concept, such as the relationship between energy, food, and oxygen, improvesstudents’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Michaels, 1981).

Jane’s thinking and her decisions to use students’ funds of knowledge during sciencelessons are based on two factors: (a) using students’ lived experiences as a knowledge fundto explain new science concepts; and (b) recognizing that science involves a connectionbetween many concepts and everyday experiences, and that teachers need to address theseconnections in class to provide full conceptual understanding. These two factors are consis-tent with Gonzalez and Moll (2002), Gonzalez and Amanti (1992), Moll et al. (1992), andVelez-lbanez and Greenberg (1992) findings that teachers who are able to bridge students’funds of knowledge with classroom instructions provide the most meaningful learningexperiences to their students.

I decided not just let them say “air.” I wanted them to understand that animals need oxygen.That was the decision I made as I was discussing with them about why living things needoxygen. LiFE curriculum has changed my outlook to teaching science. I use ideas from LiFEcurriculum a lot even when I’m teaching from the district curriculum. I constantly changemy thinking and the lesson plan because I sometimes feel that more specific concepts haveto be introduced to better develop [students’] science concept[s]. Also when students bringtheir learning I don’t want that let go because misconceptions can be resolved by using theirinput.

The activity encouraged students to relate science to immediate real-life situations thatthey had encountered. Consistent with Aikenhead’s (2001), Gonzalez and Amanti’s, (1992),Gonzalez and Moll’s, (2002), and Roth and Lee’s (2004) findings, students were able tocontribute to their science learning because Jane allowed them to engage in science thathad personal relevance to students. Jane is using students’ knowledge accumulated throughlived experiences as funds of knowledge to generate new and better science concepts aswell as to teach and explain science concepts that Jane wants her students to know.


Sometimes Jane used a student’s lived experience in a science class to demonstratescience concepts as well as to provide students a tool to solve problems in a test situation.An Asian female student during the eighth videotaped lesson on estimation mentioned thather mother uses an index finger to measure the right amount of water to cook rice. Jane usedthis shared knowledge to teach how students could improvise measuring instruments that fittheir needs. Using her student’s experience, Jane discussed how the length of a digit (showingthe digit of her index finger) could be used to measure without using an instrument. Veryeffectively, Jane was able to connect this experience with science (concept of estimationand measurement) as well as with high-stakes tests. Students learned a simple shortcut foranswering some of the questions in a high-stakes test. Jane utilized her students’ experiencesto make her science teaching a “connected science” (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001, p. 895),where scientific knowledge is applied to students’ real-life situations and students feel moreaccepted and willing to participate in science learning (Moll et al., 1992). Some Hispanicand African American students mentioned to me that in Jane’s science class they couldtalk about what they knew and they felt very encouraged and enthused about sharing theirknowledge from their home experiences. Jane’s teaching clearly encouraged, excited, andinvolved students in science learning, who otherwise might not have actively participatedin science conversations.

How Does Jane Connect Student Experiences to Her Ownand Integrate Them into Her Science Teaching?

New knowledge is generated and built through mutual sharing of ideas, experiences, andprior knowledge in a community environment (Lave & Wegner, 1993) such as a scienceclassroom. The integration of Jane’s experiences with students’ experiences also providedan environment where students’ voices were heard and utilized to teach science (Artiles,1996; Bandura, 1986; Corno, 1989; Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Jane was eager to make her science classes relevant to the lived experiences of students.She shared her own experiences with the students and established an atmosphere wherestudents’ ideas and comments were given equal value. This kind of interaction helps studentsmake sense of classroom learning and supports further knowledge (Lee, 1999). Research hasshown that teachers who welcome constructivist science teaching have a strong belief thatscience learning happens with active interaction between students and teachers and amongthe students, allowing for shared experiences (Lave & Wegner, 1993; Tobin, Briscoe, &Holman, 1990; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996).

During the second videotaped science lesson, Jane was teaching about nutrients (LiFEcurriculum). She encouraged her students to be “food scientists” and asked them to generatea list of things that “food scientists” would do. During this discussion, she talked about whatshe had heard on the radio about baby foods, and how “food scientists” have discovered whycertain kinds of baby food might not be good to feed to babies before a certain age. She alsotalked about her own experience with her children and how she nourished them. After thisthere was a sudden jump in the number of students who wanted to share their experiences inthe class. Twelve students shared a number of observations about how their grandparents,parents, aunts, uncles, sisters, and brothers were feeding the babies with different types offood. One of the students asked why baby foods have a lot of milk products; another studentasked why baby foods are either liquid or like porridge. Jane then facilitated a discussionon what kinds of food the students ate each day and whether the food was animal productor plant product. They discussed their diet based on their food sources and how and whythey would change the diet. During this class, the integration of students’ experiences andJane’s experiences played a major role in guiding the lesson and discussions that followed.

106 UPADHYAY

According to Jane, she did not anticipate that students would participate that much in theclass. Her science lesson plan for this class changed and developed through student input.Jane wanted her lesson plans to grow out of what students know and what they liked toknow:

Students have to have a part in guiding the lessons. Mostly I want them to shape my lessonsbecause that allows them to take risk[s] and own the learning. However, I’m also aware thatI have an agenda to complete and sometimes I guide the class toward completion [rather]than discussion because students have to pass the high-stakes test at the end of the year. Ido like to have them tell the class what they know and then I can help them build correctconcepts.

Obviously, Jane was aware that she had to teach students according to the district curricu-lum because she was responsible for her students’ success in the tests. However, she utilizednew instructional methods from the LiFE curriculum in order to include students’ lived ex-periences and her own to make science learning relevant to students’ own life experiences.The discussion during this lesson generated many unique experiences from both boys andgirls. Jane’s ability to integrate her experience with the students’ provided a system thatallowed this science lesson to be very interactive. After this lesson the following sciencelessons became more interactive with lots of sharing of knowledge.

Many students in Jane’s classes also informally mentioned to me that they liked to sharetheir ideas, experiences, and knowledge in class because it made them feel included. Studentsbelieved that they could remember concepts taught during Jane’s classes while taking high-stakes tests because science teaching was related to students’ shared experiences. Studentsunderstood that it was acceptable to share their experiences because Jane shared hers inthe class. In most lessons, Jane was observed talking about students’ experiences and usingthem as examples of different science concepts. On some occasions, Jane would share herexperiences with the class to encourage students to think about their own experiences inlight of the science concepts taught in the class. Jane had clearly discovered that integratingstudents’ experiences with her own could generate active classroom interactions and lastingscience learning for the students.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Even though the urban school population is becoming increasingly diverse in U.S.schools, white teachers still provide most of the instruction to children of many ethnicand linguistic groups (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). Elementary teachersin urban schools are challenged in science classrooms because there is a gap between whatstudents know from their everyday experience and what the science curriculum wants themto know. This knowledge gap is a perennial challenge for teachers who want to teach inculturally diverse schools. However, from this case study, I propose that a science teacherwho utilizes students’ lived experiences may be able to help linguistically and culturallydiverse learners to learn meaningful science if the teacher encourages and nurtures studentsto share their experiences as funds of knowledge in science classrooms.

As a white teacher, Jane had experienced diversity while going to schools in other partsof the world, and she was aware of her students’ diversity both culturally and linguisti-cally. Jane lived in urban environment and studied in urban schools of Germany and thePhilippines (a Spanish-speaking Asian country) but she did not live in any South or CentralAmerican countries during her school years. Most of her Hispanic students have familialconnections to South and Central American countries, and Jane accepted their diversityin her science teaching. I believe that Jane’s personal life experiences shaped her beliefs,


classroom practices, and thinking about building an urban science classroom that supportedstudents’ home lives and learning (Lee, 1999). She allowed students to bring their experi-ences and funds of knowledge into science classes because urban students then could relatescience learning to their everyday lives and could better retain those science concepts forlater use. Jane believed that for her students who did not speak English fluently, sciencelessons that permitted and encouraged sharing of students’ lived experiences helped them tomake sense of science, embrace science learning, and feel welcome in a new environment.This case study indicates that there is a need for white urban schoolteachers to “employ[a] radically new approach to teaching” (Tobin et al., 2001, p. 942) that recognizes andutilizes students’ lived experiences during science instructions. This case study agrees withGonzalez and Moll (2002) and Moll et al.’s (1992) finding that “funds of knowledge canbe utilized to validate students’ identities as knowledgeable individuals who can use suchknowledge as a foundation for future learning” (Gonzalez and Moll, p. 623).

I would like to believe that the LiFE curriculum provided a tool and framework for Janeto teach science in an elementary urban school using students’ lived experiences or funds ofknowledge. I also would like to believe that the LiFE curriculum is an example of “connectedscience” (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001, p. 895), where scientific knowledge is applied to urbanstudents’ real-life situations. However, I am optimistically cautious about the extent of theinfluence of the LiFE curriculum intervention in Jane’s science instructions. The study doesnot claim that Jane used students’ lived experiences or their funds of knowledge just becauseshe was exposed to the LiFE curriculum. Nonetheless, by using the LiFE curriculum andapplying the experiences gained from the LiFE curriculum into FOSS lessons, Jane was ableto support her beliefs about the value of students’ experiences and their funds of knowledgein learning science. Participation of students in Jane’s class, their willingness to sharetheir lived experiences, their classroom presentations, and Jane’s sharing of her own livedexperiences indicate that Jane was building a potentially transformative science experiencefor her students. Jane used students’ funds of knowledge that were “historically accumulatedand culturally developed” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133) to engage in critical science pedagogy.Teachers like Jane are valuable resources for urban schools because they have the “abilityto identify and connect with the social and cultural resources of their students” (Gonzalezand Moll, 2002; Moll et al., 1992; Tobin et al., 2001, p. 943) and utilize those resourcesto support their students who embody diversity and poverty. How successful a teacher isin implementing students’ experiences and their funds of knowledge in a regular scienceclassroom is still a question to be answered.

Finally, through this case study I cautiously suggest that “compatibility” between stu-dents’ lived experiences, their funds of knowledge, and science concepts can be the majorfactor in sustained science learning in Jane’s science classes. Once minority students appre-hend science instruction in this fashion, they are more likely to think critically about scienceand shared experiences, because now they can discuss those experiences in an environmentthat supports their input.

This case study is about a unique white teacher, Jane, who does not fit in as typicalwhite middle-class teacher teaching in a poor urban school with high number of Hispanicstudents. This study does not definitively answer many issues related to urban schools, urbanteacher preparation programs, student diversity, immigrant families, science curriculum,and culturally and socially relevant science teaching. This study raises some questions forfuture studies concerning urban schools, teachers, and students, for example: What factorsmake a difference in science learning for urban school students who come from poorhomes and diverse cultures? What guarantee do we have that the curriculum of the type(LiFE curriculum) enacted by Jane is truly transformative for minority urban students? Cancurricula like these provide minority students with skills and confidence to achieve social and

108 UPADHYAY

political status? Are our urban schoolteachers prepared to tackle the problems of studentswho come from recent immigrant families? What supports are necessary for teachers likeJane to use students’ lived experiences or their funds of knowledge in urban schools thatserve minority students? What does it mean to students to share their lived experiences andfunds of knowledge during science lessons? Answers to these questions are both difficultand challenging. However, we must be committed to supporting urban schools and diversestudent population through better teacher education programs and transformative scienceeducation.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not those of the LinkingFood and the Environment Program (LiFE). The author thanks Isobel Contento, Ph.D., TeachersCollege, Columbia University, the PI of the LiFE Program, for her support. I thank Angela CalabreseBarton for her insights for this paper.

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating Western and Aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research inScience Teaching, 31, 337–355.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy.New York: Oxford University Press.

Artiles, A. J. (1996). Teacher thinking in urban schools: The need for a contextualized research agenda. In F. A.Rios (Ed.), Teacher thinking in cultural context (pp. 1–52). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Atwater, M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 821–838.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Barton, A. C. (1998a). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnog-raphy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899–917.

Barton, A. C. (1998b). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 35, 379–394.

Barton, A. C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 899–917.

Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The case of Miguel and the culture of power in science. Journal of Research inScience teaching, 37(8), 871–889.

Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real-worldproblems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffold. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(8), 878–898.

Boulton, A., & Panizzon, D. (1998). The knowledge explosion in science education: Balancing practical andtheoretical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 475–481.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice.Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Bringing in the outsiders: Reshaping the sciences of the future. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 26, 401–416.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. (Richard Nice, Trans.) (La Distinction:Critique sociale du jugement. Paris 1979.) London. 2nd reprint.

Carlson, D. (1997). Making progress: Education and culture in new times. New York: Teachers College Press.Corno, L. (1989). What it means to be literate about classroom. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classrooms and literacy

(pp. 29–52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard

Educational Review, 58, 280–298.Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers

College Press.


Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination.American Education Research Journal, 33, 261–295.

Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Freeman, D. (1994). The use of language data in the study of teachers’ knowledge. In L. Carlgren, G. Handal,

& S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 77–92).Washington, DC: Falmer.

Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 38(8), 860–877.

Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. ScienceEducation, 71(4), 535–555.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago:Aldine Publishing Company.

Gonzalez, N., & Amanti, C. (1992). Teaching ethnographic methods to teachers: Successes and pitfalls. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco.

Gonzalez, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el Puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge. EducationalPolicy, 16, 623–641.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 290–294.Hillocks, G., Jr. (1998). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does

standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019–1041.Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research

Journal, 32(3), 465–491.Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1993). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Lee, O. (1999). Science knowledge, world views, and information sources in social and cultural contexts: Making

sense after a natural disaster. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 187–219.Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds.

Educational Researcher, 27, 12–21.Lollock, L. (2001). The foreign born population in the United States: Current population reports. Washington,

DC: U.S. Census Bureau.McCarty, T. L., Wallace, S., Lynch, R. H., & Benally, A. (1991). Classroom inquiry and Navajo learning styles:

A call for reassessment. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22(1), 42–59.Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in

Society, 10, 423–442.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, XXXI(2), 132–141.Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In

L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of

public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research andImprovement.

National Research Council. (1996). National science educational standards. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Norma, G., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1993). Teacherresearch on funds of knowledge: Learning from households. National Center for Research on cultural diversityand second language learning educational practice report: 6, University of Arizona.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn

mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Oakes, J. (2000). Course-taking and achievement: Inequalities that endure and change. A keynote paper presented

at the National Institute for Science Education Forum, Detroit, MI.Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes and meanings.

In The curriculum handbook (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.O’Neill, D. K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists”? Examining the potential of practice-based

scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234–266.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of

Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

110 UPADHYAY

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honorof Robert Glaser (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2),263–291.

Staver, J. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory of explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501–520.

Teachers College (2002). Linking Food and the Environment (LiFE): Module 1. Programs of Nutrition Educationand Science Education. Available at: www.tc.edu/life

Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching.Science Education, 74(4), 409–420.

Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Beliefs about the nature of science and enacted science curriculum. ScienceEducation, 6(4), 331–354.

Tobin, K., Seiler, G., & Walle, E. (1999). Reproduction of social class in the teaching and learning of science inurban high schools. Research in Science Education, 29, 171–187.

Tobin, K., Roth, W.-M., Zimmermann (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 38(8), 941–964.

Upadhyay, B. R., Barton, A. C., & Zahur, R. (2005). Teaching science in a poor urban school in Pakistan: Tensionsin the life history of a female elementary teacher. Science Education, 89(5), 725–743.

U.S. Census Bureau (1998). Commerce news: Region of birth a key indicator of well-being for America’sforeign-born population. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Metropolitan area population estimates for July 1, 1999. Available atwww.census.gov/population/www/estimatesmetropop.html

Velez-lbanez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313–335.

Documents

Using students' lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An elementary school teacher's thinking