FOSTERING CRITICAL THINKING: THE IMPACT OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH IN SOCIAL STUDIES
Abstract
This study explores the effectiveness of a social constructivist approach in fostering critical thinking skills among students in social studies classrooms. By engaging students in collaborative learning experiences, problem-based activities, and reflective discussions, this approach aims to create a dynamic educational environment that encourages active participation and deeper understanding of social studies content. The research was conducted in a diverse set of classrooms where various instructional strategies were implemented over a semester. Data were collected through observations, student reflections, and assessments of critical thinking skills before and after the intervention. The findings indicate a significant improvement in students' ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information, demonstrating the positive impact of social constructivist strategies on critical thinking. This study underscores the importance of adopting interactive and student-centered pedagogies in social studies education to cultivate critical thinkers who can engage meaningfully with complex social issues.
Keywords
Social constructivism, Critical thinking, Social studies educationHow to Cite
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
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.
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
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Dhruva Basnet
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.