- Moll, on page 565 of the original text, claims that “by capitalizing on household and other community resources, we can organize classroom instruction that far exceeds in quality the rote-like instruction […] children commonly receive in school.” What would this shift practice look like, practically? That is, what would a classroom that eschews rote, mechanized instruction in favor of a more dialogic flow look life in your opinion? Describe the mise-en-scène.
- According to Moll, why is it important to account for the variegated household dynamics found within his focal classroom, which is a relatively diverse classroom milieu?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Questions for Moll: Funds of Knowledge
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that when one imagines a rote-like classroom, the conception of repeated, constant, memorized activity comes to mind—that of a child repeating terms and practicing handwriting on lined sheets. This is what Moll sees as a failure of realizing the potential of integrating the students' funds of knowledge. Such a shift in practice would do away with such a disengaging scene, and replace it with lessons based on each child's experience and prior knowledge to further develop those elements and reengage that child. Rote and mechanized lessons are likely to divorce the student from focusing on learning, but developing lessons that the student sees as directly relevant to their lives will bring their focus back to learning and that student will better value learning. To utilize such funds of knowledge in the classroom, a teacher may follow the model of Ms. Amanti, and actually visit family homes and learn what values and lessons are taught within the family, then design lessons about those core topics around what is relevant to the students' families and ties to the experiences of the students. For example, if a large portion of the class was exposed to farming, then developing a democratic lesson based on the farming would better align with their funds of knowledge and coax better engagement than mechanized memorization of information.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Moll, this method of instruction, which lends to the various dynamics of the various students in the class, allows for better learning because “knowledge is obtained by the children, not imposed by the adults” (134). He notes that typical student and teacher relations are “thin” and “single-stranded” which ignores the various facets of the social networks and values that the student has developed, and isolates school from child's social world. Moll's method of instruction takes the student's experience and aims to teach strategic knowledge which, he argues, is essential to the “household's functioning, development, and well-being” (139).
Rote learning immediately made me think of a traditional math class. My experiences with courses like this are each student sitting in individual desks, with an old man or woman at the front of the class doing practice problems on an overhead projector while all the students silently copy down every step of the problem. I remember furiously struggling in courses like this. Rote learning is an oxy moron because memorization and repetition aren’t learning. Simply recalling facts from a lecture does not determine your level of comprehension or understanding. School should promote an active learning space where both the student and teacher are engaged participants. Moll presents a theory that by learning about a students’ home life and how they interact with people at home, teachers can draw on techniques that their parents and family members have used to teach them other things. This process was very involved, including several home visits and interactions, which makes Moll’s model somewhat unattainable for most teachers who have large classes. However, a relationship with a student’s family is important. Being able to bridge a student’s home and academic life can create an environment for success.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that a shift practice of incorporating “household and community resources” into the classroom means being able to acknowledge several things about a child: one- that he/ she comes from a particular cultural background and two- the/she brings knowledge from home to school. Initiating a dialogue between those resources to create a classroom where teachers are able to tap into those existing knowledge’s to me looks like opening a space for dialogues about multiculturalism and diversity- something I find very valuable at any grade level.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the incorporation of home and community knowledge should not only be one where the student gets asked to share something about their culture or background but also where the teacher, students and the communities alike engage in critical dialogues about what it means to come from a particular place and be in a classroom with other students of different ethnicities and with different experiences. I think there are valuable lessons to learn from history when the teacher is willing to open up the door to welcome home and community into the classroom. I imagine and wish that this would integrate a teacher-facilitator who would be willing and able to bring all of these aspects together.
According to Moll, this method is important to account in the classroom because it allows the students to learn based on what they already know and to incorporate themselves, their home knowledges and their communities as active players in their learning process. At the same time he points out the advantage of using the parents’ and communities skills and knowledges in the classroom.