Children Do Science: Learning to Recognize Children’s Funds of Science Knowledge Expressed in a Community-based Research Club Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children do science. Yet, children from lower-income communities are less likely to be recognized for doing science. This deficit narrative bolsters the construction of systemic obstacles which complicate how educators recognize and mobilize children’s science (Carlone et al., 2014). This dissertation explores how science is socially and culturally constructed via school curriculum, the academy, and public science forums, such that they generate and gatekeep a world of science where there are insiders and outsiders (Dawson, 2014b). In collaboration with a community science club provider and an urban primary school in Central Canada, a new experimental after school science club was created. Twenty children aged 8 to 11 were joined by two staff members and me as a volunteer club facilitator, as we explored science concepts and worked towards a showcase presented to the school community. Using critical practitioner research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), I explored the affordances and challenges of supporting children’s funds of knowledge (FoK) (Moll et al., 1992), specifically their funds of science knowledge (FoSK) as expressed in the space of the club. I share four stories which weave together the data, my critical reflections, and relevant literature: 1) Coming to terms with STEM; 2) Robot FoSK—Child engineers and social innovators; 3) Slime and the scientific expression of children; and 4) The science centre—It belongs to us. The narrative analysis demonstrates the how children do science in a manner which aligns with the common characteristics of science, and the more expansive and creative qualities of children’s science. I make suggestions for how a FoSK framework can support educators to recognize and mobilize children’s science skills and knowledge as they learn. Further recommendations highlight the necessity of supporting children’s science talk, play, and creativity; the equitable potential of community-based informal science education; and the importance of interrogating one’s own power and capacity for recognizing FoSK. In sharing my experience, I hope to motivate researchers and educators to look inward and challenge their assumptions, personal and institutionalized, and adapt their practices to better support children as they do science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".