Abstract

The major aim of the present study is to address the question do we have any alternative of deficit model of teaching learning? For this purpose, teachers of social studies teachers were interviewed and teaching learning practices of social studies has been evaluated. The researcher adopts the theoretical underpinnings of socio-cultural approach to learning and tries to design and execute constructivist teaching learning setting for teaching social studies. It emerges from the analysis of these constructivists pedagogic settings that it helps to develop and sustain a culture of inquiry in the classroom where the strong interface between students’ everyday knowledge and school knowledge take place. The paper concluded that for moving deficit model of teaching learning, knowledge should be viewed as co-constructed, negotiated and situated entity, knower should have agency and the voice in process of knowing and the process learning should be dialogic.

Keywords

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 (2^nd ed.). London: Sage.
• College of Education. (1956). Education in Nepal-report of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission. Kathmandu: Author.
• 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. (1961). Report of All Round National Education Commission. Kathmandu: Author.
• MOE. (1971). Report of the National Education System Plan. Kathmandu: Author.
• MOE. (1999). BPEP-II Programme Implementation Plan 1999-2004 (Main Report). Kathmandu: Author.
• MOE. (2009). School Sector Reform Plan 2009-2015. Kathmandu: Author.
• MOEC. (1991). The Basic and Primary Education Master Plan 1991-2001. Kathmandu: Author.
• MOES. (2003). Education for All National Plan of Action Nepal (2001-2015). Kathmandu: Author.
• MOES. (2005). National Curriculum Framework for School Education (pre-primary to 12) in Nepal. Kathmandu: Author.
• 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 in Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
• NEC. (1992). Report of National Education Commission. Kathmandu: Author.
• Nuthall, G. (2000). The Role of Memory in Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge in Science and Social Studies Units. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (1), 83-139.
• Roberta McKay, (Summar, 1995). Brain-based learning: support for an ınquiry curriculum. Canadian Social Studies, 29(4), 128-129.
• Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 679-744). New York: John Wiley.
• Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of multicultural education (pp. 628-634). New York: McMillan.
• Smith, J. and Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1) 4-12.
• Richardson, V. (1970). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: theory and practice. In V. Richirdson (Ed.), Constructivist Teacher Education: Building a New World of Understandings (pp.3-14). Washington, D. C.: Falmer Press.
• Velez-Ibanez, C. & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313-335.
• Vygotsky, L. (1987). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, M.A., Harvard University Press.
• Wertsch , J. (1997). Mind in action. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zevin, J. (2000). Social studies for the twenty-first century: methods and materials for teaching in middle and secondary schools. New York: Longman.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.