Articles
| Open Access |
https://doi.org/10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-04-05-01
POWERFUL FRIENDLY CONSTRUCTIVIST WAY TO DEAL WITH LEARNING FOR SOCIAL EXAMINATIONS STUDY HALL
Abstract
The primary objective of this study is to determine whether there is a deficit model alternative for teaching and learning. Teachers of social studies were interviewed for this purpose, and teaching and learning practices in social studies were evaluated. The specialist takes on the hypothetical underpinnings of socio-social way to deal with learning and attempts to plan and execute constructivist showing getting the hang of setting for showing social investigations. The analysis of these constructivist pedagogical settings reveals that the classroom serves as a strong interface between students' everyday knowledge and school knowledge, fostering and maintaining a culture of inquiry. The paper came to the conclusion that the process of learning should be dialogic, that knowledge should be viewed as a co-constructed, negotiated, and situated entity, that the knower should have agency and a voice in the process of knowing, and that the moving deficit model of teaching and learning should be used.
Keywords
Studies of society, sources of information, Constructivism in society
References
Bhattacharya, H. (2008). Interpretive research. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. New Delhi: Sage.
Brophy, J. (2002). Social constructivist teaching: affordances and constraints. Boston: Elsevier. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. Bryman, A. ( 2008). Social research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cannella, G. S. &Reiff, J. C. (1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: teachers as empowered learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21 (3), 31-35.
CERID. (1989). Instructional Improvement in Primary Schools. Kathmandu: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
College of Education. (1956). Education in Nepal-report of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission.
Ediger, M. (2000). Psychology in Teaching the Social Studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 28-36. Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Gonzalez, N. &Amanti, C. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory in Practice, 31(2), 132-141
Goss, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35 (4), 2558-291.
Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
High Level National Education Commission (HLNEC). (1999). The Report of High Level National Education Commission. Kathmandu: Author.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning-legitimate peripheral participation, New york, U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press.
McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: an ıntroduction to critical pedagogy. New York: Pearson.
MOE. (1971). Report of the National Education System Plan. Kathmandu: Author.
MOE. (1999). BPEP-II Programme Implementation Plan 1999-2004 (Main Report). Kathmandu: Author.
Article Statistics
Downloads
Copyright License
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.