In the 1990s Moll and Greenberg introduce the concept of "funds of knowledge as a way to describe and acknowledge the intellectual resources of minority language groups . . . [FoKn] are the essential cultural practices and bodies of knowledge and information that households use to survive, to get ahead, or to thrive" (Marshall & Toohey, 2010, 222). These FoKn extend beyond the classroom environment and profoundly affect the way in which students construct meaning outside the confines of the traditional classroom. FoKn can be derived from alternative tools which could include: images, performance, movement, books, artifacts, photographs, paintings, film, etc. FoKn can often be compromised in traditional school communities which “commonly ignore the multimodality of learners’ lives [due to the fact] that classrooms rely largely on language as a representational tool for meaning-making while disregarding other tools that students use to make meaning outside the classroom” (Marshall & Toohey, 2010, 224).
So what are the issues related to "Capital" and/or FoKn that I have taken for granted in my own teaching practice?
One of the main issues related to this concept that I often take for granted is that I understand the cultural backgrounds of each of my students. In my humble opinion, educators can easily fall into the habit of considering themselves an “expert” on world history and culture and, as a new teacher, I am certainly no exception to this tendency. To rectify this habit in my own classroom I need to cultivate an appreciation and understanding of my students’ FoKn. Once I can better understand their own cultural resources I can use it to create more engaging lesson plans and forms of assessment that will appeal to my students and allow me to help them make meaningful connections between themselves and the world around them.
Another issue that comes to my mind is directly related to “Cultural Capital” as defined by Bourdieu and Passeron in 1977. For example, something as seemingly simple as expecting my students to maintain eye contact when discussing a topic with myself as “proof” of their understanding of the subject material and focus on the conversation. Eriks-Brophy advocates for the fact that, “Difficulty following the rules of classroom interactions can therefore contribute to differential access to learning and to miscommunication, which can have serious consequences for students’ educational success . . . communicative misunderstandings represent a form of institutional discrimination that results in serious misjudgements of students’ academic and communicative competence” (Eriks-Brophy & Crago, 2003, 399). In my own classroom, my perception that a students’ lack of “eye contact” during classroom discussion demonstrates a lack of understanding or disinterest in the subject matter could actually result in a misjudgement of the students’ academic and communicative competency. Could this lack of “eye contact” be the students way of showing respect when speaking with an adult or person of authority? Could it be the student demonstrating a lack of confidence in their ability to discuss their understanding of a topic using the English language?
These issues related to “Capital” and FoKn can only be remedied by my willingness and initiative to understand my students’ unique backgrounds and allow them to bring their own cultural resources into the traditional classroom to better make connections between themselves and the world around them.
References:
Eriks-Brophy, A. & Crago, M. (2003). Variation in international discourse features: Cultural or linguistic? Evidence from Inuit and non-Inuit teachers of Nunavik. Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 34(4), 396-419.
Marshall, E., & Toohey, K. (2010). Representing family: Community funds of knowledge, bilingualism, and multimodality. Harvard Educational Review. 80(2), 221-288.
