Use of pck by social science teachers

4082 The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, vol.4, Issue 10, October, 2017
The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention 4(10): 4082-4089, 2017
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v4i10.12 ICV 2015: 45.28
ISSN: 2349-2031
© 2017, THEIJSSHI
Research Article
Uses of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Pck) By Social Science Teachers in Classroom
Transaction at Elementary Level
Mrs.P.Sujata Dora1
, Dr. Ramakanta Mohalik2
1
Teacher Educator, District Institute for Education and Training, Keonjhar,Odisha.
2
Associate Professor in Education, Regional Institute of Education, (NCERT) Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
Abstract: The main purpose of this study is to investigate the uses of PCK in classroom transaction by social science
teachers in relation to qualification. The qualitative research method was applied for studying the uses of PCK with 30
social science teachers selected purposefully from Government elementary schools of Bhubaneswar city, Odisha, India.
Out of 30 teachers, 15 are having degree with D.EL.Ed. and 15 are having degree with B.Ed. Self-developed observation
schedule consisting of 28 items based on uses of general pedagogy, content knowledge, knowledge of context and learners
was used for data collection. The collected data were analyzed by using percentage and accordingly interpretations are
drawn. The study found that i) 73.33% of teachers frequently use teaching learning strategy and play way techniques
during classroom transaction. But more percentage of B.Ed. teachers use teaching learning strategy and more percentage
of D.EL.Ed. teachers use play way techniques ii) 80% of teachers not at all analyze students’ mistakes and reasons of
mistakes to facilitate learning, iii) only 6.66% of teachers fulfill students’ needs and conducts activities as per interest of
the learners in social science learning situations iv) 76.66% of teachers not at all facilitates the students according to
individual difference v) and 70% of teachers are liberal and friendly to students in the class. The study has suggested
implications for teachers, teacher educators as well as educational planners of both the pre-service and in-service teacher
education programme.
Key Words:-Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Social Science Teachers, Classroom Transaction, Elementary Level.
Conceptualization of the Problem
Elementary education is the foundation of the pyramid of
education system because the initial study starts with
elementary education without which none of our aims will be
realized. The quality of elementary education is mainly
depends on teachers’ teaching strategy. Elementary school
teachers must be positive and use fun and unique approaches
to learning to help keep each student interested and engaged in
learning. They should keep things stimulating and fresh to
hold students’ attention and keep them interested in their
learning. The Odisha Primary Education Programme
Authority (2008-12) reported that in 80% primary schools
teachers were using traditional methods of teaching. Since
students’ participation wasn't encouraged during classroom
teaching learning process and students were not spontaneous
in responding to or making queries to the teachers. The
students were less enthusiastic because classroom teaching
was not lively. It is essential to enable the teachers to act as
agents of modernization, social change, development and
transmittance of national thinking and scientific temper.
Because, in the absence of an effective teacher, all these will
prove in fractious so far as pupils’learning are concerned.
Kabir (1956) rightly stated without good teacher even the best
of the systems is bound to fail. With good teacher, even the
defect education system can be largely overcome.
Elementary education introduces children to mathematics,
language, science and social science. The last one encompass
diverse concerns of society and include a wide range of
content drawn from the disciplines of history, geography,
political science, economics, sociology and anthropology. In
social science field, selecting and organizing material in to a
meaningful curriculum and enable students to develop a
critical understanding of society is a challenging task. So, the
social science teacher should carry a normative responsibility
of creating a strong sense of human values, namely: freedom,
trust, mutual respect and respect for diversity and social
science teaching should aim at generating in students a critical
moral and mental energy and making them alert to the social
forces that threaten these values. The teacher again needs to
understand subject matter deeply and flexibly so they can help
students to create useful cognitive maps, relate one idea to
another and address misconceptions. Teachers need to see how
ideas connect across fields and to everyday life. This kind of
understanding provides a foundation for pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) that enables teachers to make ideas
accessible and clear to others. This form of teacher
knowledge, according to Shulman (1989) “goes beyond
knowledge of subject matter as per to the dimension of subject
matter knowledge for teaching”. The integration of content,
pedagogy, school environment and knowledge of learners
constitute pedagogical content knowledge. PCK is a new form
of knowledge developed by teacher by integrating different

Dr. Ramakanta Mohalik et.al / Uses of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Pck) By Social Science Teachers in Classroom
aspects of teaching. It varies from teacher to teacher, subject
to subject, school to school and learner to learner. PCK theory
has been used for over two decades in educational research.
This theory states that students construct new knowledge
based on previous experience by integrating concrete
experiences in to abstract ideas through reflection. In PCK
theory, students learn from the experiences they have within
and outside of the classroom. By actively participating in the
learning process, students can become life-long learners.
Rationale of the Study
Social science is an important subject of learning at the
elementary stage which develops children's abilities for
socialization. It helps the learners in acquiring decision
making ability through its application to real life both in
familiar and unfamiliar situations. One of the basic aims of
teaching social science is to inculcate the skill of social values
and experience around the learner. Social science subject is
very interesting at the same time is little abstract. For
delivering the concept of social science the teachers play an
important role. A social science teacher should be effective
and competent enough to teach social science effectively to
the students in the classroom. It is generally accepted that a
good student can only study other subjects like science and
mathematics seriously and avoiding to read social science but
it can be proved wrong with the help of a well-deserved
equipped experienced teacher. Social science teacher should
be problem setter, facilitator, guide, good communicator etc.
PCK of a teacher is very essential for effective teaching.
Majority of classroom teachers lack substantial subject matter
knowledge of what to teach and how to teach the subject
matter that means without PCK of classroom teachers,
students are underachieving or not performing well in social
science. The PCK of teacher reflects how far teacher is
capable of bringing improvement in classroom teaching and
students’ achievement. It illustrates how the content matter of
social science is transformed for communication with learners.
Hence it is relevant to study uses of PCK by social science
teachers in classroom transaction.
Recently many researchers have taken interest on pedagogical
content knowledge of teachers with reference to various
variables. Some of the relevant studies are discussed in the
following paragraph.
John Lou S.Luccnario (2016) found that pedagogical content
knowledge guided lesson study was an effective method to
develop the teacher’s PCK competencies and students’
achievement in terms of conceptual understanding and
problem solving. Marie Evens, Jan Elen and Fien Depaepe
(2015) reported that most intervention studies are conducted in
math and science education and use a qualitative methodology
and may strengthen future research on stimulating PCK.
Thilokleickmann (2013) found that differences in the structure
of teacher education were reasonably well reflected in
participants’ content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge. Massoumeh et al (2012) found that there is a co-
relation between students’ success and teacher's pedagogical
content knowledge. Mohd Yusminah and Effandi (2010)
found that due to low pedagogical content knowledge level,
the secondary mathematics teachers failed to deliver the
related concepts of functions accurately and clearly in class in
comparison to experienced teachers. Jaipal, Kamini (2009)
stated that secondary teachers have no sufficient content
knowledge for teaching at secondary level/class, generally
have general idea about his subject for teaching. Pernilla
Nilsson (2008) emphasized that pre-service training provides
pedagogical knowledge rather than content knowledge of
secondary level, and also found that teacher has good subject-
matter knowledge and they understand better way of teaching
in the class. Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders,
and Flood (2008) came to conclusion that pedagogical
knowledge is essential for teaching and that it can be changed
throughout university education coursework and fieldwork.
The above discussion reveals that attempt has been made by
researchers to examine the pedagogical content knowledge of
teachers. Few researches were focused on uses of pedagogical
content knowledge in regular class-room teaching and its
effect on students. On one hand, pedagogical content
knowledge is most urgent for effective teaching in all school
subjects. No research found reported that studied PCK of
social science teachers in Odisha. In this context, research
study on uses of pedagogical content knowledge by the social
science teachers at the elementary level is relevant. The
investigator raised following research question for
investigation.
 Is there any difference in uses of pedagogical content
knowledge by social science teachers in relation to their
qualification?
Statement of the Problem
The present problem would be stated as Uses of Pedagogical
Content Knowledge by Social Science Teachers in Classroom
Transaction at Elementary Level.
Operational Definition of Terms Used
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: It includes four
components: content knowledge in social science, pedagogical
knowledge in social science, students’ knowledge (their
subject knowledge, motivation and background) and
contextual knowledge (school climate, parental concerns and
legal issues of the community).
Social Science Teacher: The social science teacher used in
the study connotes the teachers who teach social science as a
subject to students of 6th to 8th class.
Classroom Transaction: It refers to teaching strategies and
activities used by teacher in class for teaching social science.
It contains activities relating to creating readiness, presenting
subject, developing self-learning, satisfying requirements of
different kinds of learner and evaluating students’ learning etc.
Elementary Level: It refers to the school having class-I to
class-VII. For this study the elementary education refers to the
class-VI to class-VIII.

Qualification: It refers to educational qualification of
teachers. For this study it is divided into two categories such
as degree with D.EL.Ed. and degree with B.Ed.
Objective
 To study the uses of pedagogical content knowledge in
classroom transaction by social science teachers in
relation to qualification.
Methodology
The qualitative research method was used for studying uses of
PCK by social science teachers in classroom transaction. The
classroom transaction is observed intensively by use of
observation schedule. The classes were also video recorded for
examining the uses of PCK.Total 30 social science teachers
were selected purposefully from Government elementary
schools of Bhubaneswar city, Odisha, India. Out of 30, 15 are
having degree with D.EL.Ed. and other 15 are having degree
with B.Ed. Self-developed observation schedule consisting of
28 items based on uses of general pedagogy, content
knowledge, knowledge of context and learners was used for
data collection as tool. The content validity of the tool was
ensured by expert comments and split-half reliability is.67.
The collected data were analyzed by using percentage and
accordingly interpretations are drawn.
Analysis and Interpretation
The investigator analyzed the collected data by using
percentage and qualitative description, which is presented in
following paragraphs.
Table-1: Using General Pedagogy
Sl.No
.
Aspects/Criteria Qualification Not at all (N&
%)
Sometimes (N &
%)
Frequently
(N & %)
1. Teaching learning strategy as per the
mental development of learners
D.EL.Ed. 0 6 (40) 9 (60)
B.Ed. 0 2 (13.33) 13 (86.66)
Total 0 8 (26.66) 22 (73.33)
2. Play-way techniques to motivate the
students
D.EL.Ed. 12 (80) 3 (20) 0
B.Ed. 10(66.66) 5 (33.33) 0
Total 22(73.33) 8 (26.66) 0
3. Suitable strategy for geography topic D.EL.Ed. 0 5 (33.33) 10 (66.66)
B.Ed. 1 (6.66) 5 (33.33) 9 (60)
Total 1(3.33) 10 (33.33) 19(63.33)
4. Activity based techniques to
engage the students
D.EL.Ed. 10(66.66) 3 (20) 2 (13.33)
B.Ed. 6 (40) 7(46.66) 2 (13.33)
Total 16(53.33) 10(33.33) 4(13.33)
5. Demonstration strategy to give
practical knowledge
D.EL.Ed. 3(20) 5(33.33) 7(46.66)
B.Ed. 4(26.66) 4(26.66) 7(46.66)
Total 7(23.33) 9(30) 14(46.66)
6. Analyze the students’ mistakes
and reasons of mistakes to
facilitate learning
D.EL.Ed. 12(80) 3(20) 0
B.Ed. 12(80) 3(20) 0
Total 24(80) 6(20) 0
7. Ask questions to identify doubts of
students
D.EL.Ed. 1(6.66) 7(46.66) 7(46.66)
B.Ed. 0 5(33.33) 10(66.66)
Total 1(3.33) 12(40) 17(56.66)
Table-1 indicates that 73.33% of teachers frequently and
26.66% of teachers sometimes use teaching learning strategy
as per the mental development of learners. The table also
reveals that 60% of teachers having degree with D.EL.Ed.
qualification and 88.66% of teachers having degree with B.Ed.
qualification frequently use learning strategy as per the mental
development of the learners. So, it can be interpreted that,
teachers with higher qualification know and apply different
learning strategies as per mental development of learners.
The table also reports that only 26.66% of teachers sometimes
and 73.33% of teachers not at all use play way techniques to
motivate students. The table also reveals that 20% of teachers
having degree with D.EL.Ed. qualification and 33.33% of
teachers having degree with B.Ed. qualification sometimes use
play way techniques. So, it can be concluded that both
D.EL.Ed. and B.Ed. teachers avoid play way techniques.
The table indicates that 13.33% of teachers frequently, 33.33%
of teachers sometimes and 53.33% of teachers not at all use
activity based techniques.20% of D.EL.Ed. teachers and
46.66% of B.Ed. teachers sometimes use this activity based
techniques. And this also reveals that 40% of D.EL.Ed.
teachers and B.Ed. teachers not at all use this technique. So it
may be concluded that mostly 50% of teachers are unable to
use activity based techniques during teaching and B.Ed.
qualified teachers perform a little more than D.EL.Ed. teachers
in this concern.

It is found from this table that 46.66% of teachers frequently,
30% of teachers sometimes and 23.33% of teachers not at all
use demonstration strategy to give practical
knowledge.46.66% of both D.EL.Ed. and B.Ed. teachers
frequently use this demonstration technique. And 33.33% 0f
D.EL.Ed. teachers and 26.66% of B.Ed. teachers sometimes
use this technique. It is mostly depended upon the topic and
attitude of the teachers. It is concluded that 76% of teachers
have positive attitude regarding demonstration strategy. But
D.EL.Ed. teachers are applying this technique a little more
than B.Ed. teachers.
Over all, from the criteria of pedagogy, play way techniques,
activity based techniques and analysis of students’ mistakes
are not done fruitfully by teachers. Here qualification does not
affect too much. But B.Ed. teachers apply good teaching
learning strategy and frequently ask questions to the students
in comparison to the D.EL.Ed. teachers and D.EL.Ed. teachers
are far better in use of demonstration strategy than B.Ed.
teachers.
Table-2: Relating to Content
This table also highlights that 73.33% of teachers frequently,
23.33% of teachers sometimes and 3.33% of teachers not at all
present the content in proper sequence. It also signifies that
60% of D.EL.Ed. teachers frequently present the content in
proper sequence where as 86.66% of B.Ed. teachers frequently
do that. So it is concluded that B.Ed. teachers are more
successful than D.EL.Ed. Teachers in this concern.
This table suggests that 6.66% of teachers frequently, 36.66%
of teachers sometimes and 56.66% of teachers not at all fulfill
students' need in learning situations. It signifies that 20% of
D.EL.Ed. teachers frequently fulfill students' need in learning
situations where as 53.33% of B.Ed. teachers frequently do
that. From this, it is concluded that generally teachers are
weak in this field. But B.Ed. teachers are little bit better than
D.EL.Ed. teachers in this concern.
This table explains that 13.33% of teachers not at all, 46.66%
of teachers sometimes and 40% of teachers frequently use
their conceptual knowledge at the time of giving examples. It
further shows that 26.66% of D.EL.Ed. teachers frequently use
their conceptual knowledge where as 53.33% of B.Ed.
teachers frequently use that.46.66% of both teachers
sometimes use conceptual knowledge. So it is inferred that
generally all teachers mostly follow this method.
It is found from the table that 33.33% of teachers not at all,
56.66% of teachers sometimes and 10% of teachers frequently
use their thorough understanding of the topic. It further
indicates that13.33% of B.Ed. teachers frequently use their
thorough understanding where as only 6.66% of D.EL.Ed.
teachers use that. Another interpretation is that 40% of
D.EL.Ed. teachers not at all use this whereas only 26.66% of
B.Ed. teachers not at all use this. So it can be concluded that
B.Ed. teachers are more effective than D.EL.Ed. teachers in
Sl.No. Aspects/Criteria Qualification Not at all (N
& %)
Sometimes (N
& %)
Frequently
(N &
%)
1. Simplify the concepts for better
understanding
D.EL.Ed. 1(6.66) 3(20) 11(73.33)
B.Ed. 0 1(6.66) 14(93.33)
Total 1(3.33) 4(13.33) 25(83.33)
2. Present the content in proper sequence D.EL.Ed. 1(6.66) 5(33.33) 9(60)
B.Ed. 0 2(13.33) 13(86.66)
Total 1(3.33) 7(23.33) 22(73.33)
3. Explain the topic by relating to the
horizontal and vertical aspect of that
topic
D.EL.Ed. 3(20) 10(66.66) 2(13.33)
B.Ed. 1(6.66) 10(66.66) 4(26.66)
Total 4(13.33) 20(66.66) 6(20)
4. Fulfill students’ needs in learning
situations
D.EL.Ed. 11(73.33) 3(20) 1(6.66)
B.Ed. 6(40) 8(53.33) 1(6.66)
Total 17(56.66) 11(36.66) 2(6.66)
5. Conceptual knowledge at the time of
giving examples
D.EL.Ed. 4(26.66) 7(46.66) 4(26.66)
B.Ed. 0 7(46.66) 8(53.33)
Total 4(13.33) 14(46.66) 12(40)
6. Thorough understanding of the topic
according to students’ demand of
explanation
D.EL.Ed. 6(40) 8(53.33) 1(6.66)
B.Ed. 4(26.66) 9(60) 2(13.33)
Total 10(33.33) 17(56.66) 3(10)
7. Ask application based questions for
checking conceptual understanding of
students
D.EL.Ed. 3(20) 10(66.66) 2(13.33)
B.Ed. 0 10(66.66) 5(33.33)
Total 3(10) 20(66.66) 7(23.33)

this field.
Overall, from the criteria of content, simplification of the
concept and asking of application based questions are done
fruitfully by both D.EL.Ed. and B.Ed. teachers. But in other
criteria like sequence wise presentation, explanation of the
topic, fulfillment of students’ needs, giving conceptual
examples and using of thorough understanding of the topic
teachers are not effective but B.Ed. teachers are something
better than D.EL.Ed. teachers.
Table-3: Relating to Context
Sl.
No.
Aspects/Criteria Qualification Not at all (N &
%)
Sometimes (N
& %)
Frequently
(N & %)
1. Bring positive attitude in students D.EL.Ed. 1(6.66) 4(26.66) 10(66.66)
B.Ed. 0 3(20) 12(80)
Total 1(3.33) 7(23.33) 22(73.33)
2. Give examples relating to the
experiences of the children
D.EL.Ed. 2(13.33) 6(40) 7(46.66)
B.Ed. 0 5(33.33) 10(66.66)
Total 2(6.66) 11(36.66) 17(56.66)
3. Illustrate incidents from the local
setting of the child
D.EL.Ed. 5(33.33) 6(40) 4(26.66)
B.Ed. 4(26.66) 6(40) 5(33.33)
Total 9(30) 12(40) 9(30)
4. Conduct activities as per the
interest of the students
D.EL.Ed. 12(80) 2(13.33) 1(6.66)
B.Ed. 12(80) 2(13.33) 1(6.66)
Total 24(80) 4(13.33) 2(6.66)
5. Conduct practical activities in the
class by using resources available
in the school
D.EL.Ed. 5(33.33) 6(40) 4(26.66)
B.Ed. 5(33.33) 4(26.66) 6(40)
Total 10(33.3) 10(33.33) 10(33.33)
6. Utilize students’ exiting knowledge
for teaching new concept
D.EL.Ed. 0 2(13.33) 13(86.66)
B.Ed. 0 1(6.66) 14(93.33)
Total 0 3(10) 27(90)
7. Give importance to cultural
background of the students during
the class
D.EL.Ed. 11(73.33) 3(20) 1(6.66)
B.Ed. 9(60) 6(40) 0
Total 20(66.66) 9(30) 1(3.33)
This table indicates that 73.33% of teachers frequently,
23.33% of teachers sometimes and 3.33% of teachers not at all
bring positive attitude in students. Again this table clarifies
that 66.66% of D.EL.Ed. teachers bring positive attitude in
students, where as 80% of B.Ed. teachers bring positive
attitude. This proves that B.Ed. teachers are far better than
D.EL.Ed. teachers in this field.
This table explains that 6.66% of teachers not at all, 36.66% of
teachers sometimes and 56.66% of teachers frequently give
examples relating to the experiences of the child. This further
shows 46.66% of D.EL.Ed. teachers and 66.66% of B.Ed.
teachers frequently give examples relating to experiences of
the child. And 13.33% of D.EL.Ed. teachers and 0% of B.Ed.
teachers not at all do this. This again proves in this case, B.Ed.
teachers are more successful.
This table clarifies that 70% of teachers illustrate incidents
from local setting of the child, whereas only 30% of teachers
don't do this.26.66% of D.EL.Ed. teachers and 33.33% of
B.Ed. teachers frequently illustrate local incidents.
By this, we may conclude B.Ed. teachers are slightly better
than D.EL.Ed. teachers in this part.
This table suggests 33.33% of teachers frequently, 33.33%
teachers not at all conduct practical activities by using school
resources.26.66% of D.EL.Ed. and 40% of B.Ed. teachers
frequently do this. Whereas 40% of D.EL.Ed. and 26.66% of
B.Ed. teachers sometimes do this. So, it can't be said which
category teacher performs well in this concern. It depends on
other situational factors except teacher’s qualification.
Over all, from the criteria of context like in bringing positive
attitude, giving examples, illustrating local incidents and
utilizing students' existing knowledge B.Ed. teachers are
efficient than D.EL.Ed. teachers. In other criteria like: in
conducting practical activities by using school resources and
giving importance to cultural background of students teachers
are inefficient. But D.EL.Ed. teachers are a little bit better than
B.Ed. teachers in above two fields.

Table-4: Relating to Understanding the Lerner
Sl.No. Aspects/Criteria Qualification Not at all (N
& %)
Sometimes (N
& %)
Frequently
(N & %)
1. Facilitate students’ learning as
per their requirements
D.EL.Ed. 9(60) 4(26.66) 2(13.33)
B.Ed. 7(46.66) 7(46.66) 1(6.66)
Total 16(53.33) 11(36.66) 3(10)
2. Student's local language in the
class
D.EL.Ed. 0 5(33.33) 10(66.66)
B.Ed. 1(6.66) 4(26.66) 10(66.66)
Total 1(3.33) 9(30) 20(66.66)
3. Clarify the students’
misconception
D.EL.Ed. 5(33.33) 8(53.33) 2(13.33)
B.Ed. 8(53.33) 6(40) 1(6.66)
Total 13(43.33) 14(46.66) 3(10)
4. Facilitate the students according
to the individual difference
D.EL.Ed. 12(80) 3(20) 0
B.Ed. 11(73.33) 4(26.66) 0
Total 23(76.66) 7(23.33) 0
5. Geographical language and
language of the students jointly
in the class
D.EL.Ed. 0 6(40) 9(60)
B.Ed. 0 2(13.33) 13(86.66)
Total 0 08(33.33) 22(73.33)
6. Manage the mischievous
students in class
D.EL.Ed. 11(73.33) 4(26.66) 0
B.Ed. 10(66.66) 5(33.33) 0
Total 21(70) 9(30) 0
7. Teacher is liberal and friendly to
students in the class during
teaching
D.EL.Ed. 0 4(26.66) 11(73.33)
B.Ed. 0 5(33.33) 10(66.66)
Total 0 9(30) 21(70)
Here, the table indicates that, 53.33% of teachers not at all,
facilitate students' learning as per their requirements.60% of
D.EL.Ed. teachers and 46.66% of B.Ed. teachers not at all
facilitate students' learning as per their requirements, where as
13.33% of D.EL.Ed. teachers and 6.66% of B.Ed. teachers
frequently facilitate students' learning. So, it is concluded that,
in this criteria teachers are weak and this is applied a little
more by B.Ed. teachers than D.EL.Ed. teachers but some good
D.EL.Ed. teachers frequently use this.
This table clarifies that 3.33% of teachers not at all, 30% of
teachers sometimes and 66.66% of teachers frequently use
students' local language in class. This table again indicates that
both 66.66% of D.EL.Ed. teachers and B.Ed. teachers
frequently use students' local language in the class. And 100%
of D.EL.Ed. teachers use this where as only 3.33% of B.Ed.
teachers don't use local language. In these criteria teachers are
most successful.
This table furthers indicates that 76.66% of teachers not at all,
facilitates students' according to individual difference. This is
concluded that few teachers are giving importance to
individual difference in dealing with students.
This table further informed that 70% of teachers not at all,
90% of teachers sometimes manage the mischievous students
in the class. And it again shows that 26.66% of D.El.Ed.
teachers sometimes manage the mischievous students where as
33.33% of B.Ed. teachers do that. Then 73.33% of D.El.Ed.
teachers not at all do this where as 66.66% of B.Ed. teachers
not at all do this. This proves that in this concern B.Ed.
teachers are slightly better than D.El.Ed. teachers.
Over all, from the criteria of understanding the learner, use of
local language, joint use of geographical language and
students’ language and being liberal and friendly to students,
teachers are efficient. Other criteria like in managing the
mischievous students and facilitating students according to
individual difference teachers are not capable. And other two
criteria like: in facilitating students as per requirements and
clarification of students’ misconception, some teachers are
effective and some are not.
Major Findings
 73.33% of teachers frequently use teaching learning
strategy as per mental development of learners. More

percentage of teachers with B.Ed. (86.66%) use this
aspect in teaching where as only 60% of teachers with
D.EL.Ed. use this.
 73.33% of teachers frequently use play way techniques to
motivate the students. More percentage of teachers with
D.EL.Ed. (80%) use this aspect in teaching where as only
66.66% of teachers with B.Ed. use this.
 53.33% of teachers not at all use activity based
techniques to engage the students. From which, 66.66%
are D.EL.Ed. teachers and 40% are B.Ed. teachers.
 80% of teachers not at all analyze students’ mistakes and
reasons of mistakes to facilitate learning. And the
condition is same in case of both B.Ed. and D.EL.Ed.
teachers.
 83.33% of teachers frequently simplify the concepts for
better understanding. In this aspect, 93.33% are B.Ed.
teachers where as only 73.33% are D.EL.Ed. teachers.
 Only 6.66% of teachers fulfill students’ needs in social
science learning situations. Both B.Ed. and D.EL.Ed.
teachers are in-capable in this aspect.
 Only 56.66% of teachers give examples in social science
class relating to the experiences of the child. More
percentage of B.Ed. teachers (66.66%) give examples
where as only 46.66% of D.EL.Ed. teachers do this.
 Only 6.66% of teachers frequently conduct activities as
per interest of the learners. Both B.Ed. and D.EL.Ed.
teachers are in poor condition in this aspect.
 66.66% of teachers not at all give importance to cultural
background of students in social science class. 73.33% of
D.EL.Ed. teachers not at all give importance to cultural
background where as 60% of B.Ed. teachers not at all do
this.
 70% of teachers are liberal and friendly to students in the
class. Among which, 73.33% are .D.EL.Ed. teachers and
66.66% are B.Ed. teachers. Here D.EL.Ed. teachers are
slightly better than B.Ed. teachers.
 76.66% of teachers not at all facilitate the students
according to individual difference. More percentage of
D.EL.Ed. Teachers (80%) not at all facilitate students,
where as 73.33% of B.Ed. teachers not at all do this.
Educational Implications
The present study has significant implications for teachers,
teacher educators as well as educational planners of both the
pre-service and in-service teacher education programme.
1. Teachers must be encouraged to develop understanding
on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in school
subjects as it helps in effective teaching learning. The
educational administrators and trainers must help both
pre-service and in-service teachers in developing and
updating PCK in social science. The pedagogy course of
social science in pre-service teacher education programme
must incorporate PCK in curriculum and apply it during
internship teaching for developing PCK among trainees.
2. Interaction programmes should be organized for both
D.EL.Ed. and B.Ed. teachers at school level, cluster level
and block level for sharing skills and experiences of PCK
which will help teachers to develop understanding on
PCK. This kind of peer interaction is highly essential for
developing PCK among novice teachers.
3. Teachers with D.EL.Ed. qualification must be oriented on
use of teaching learning strategy as per mental
development of learner and activity based techniques as
per the NCF 2005, the RTE Act 2009 and NCTE
regulation 2014.Similarly, teachers with B.Ed.
qualification must be provided orientation program on use
of play way techniques in elementary class.
4. Continuous Professional Development programmes must
be arranged for teachers regarding giving examples
relating to child’s experiences and making linkage
between learning and cultural background of different
students on time to time. Teachers may be guided on
entire assessment procedure like: analyzing students’
mistakes and reasons of mistakes and then providing
remedies. Teachers should be guided by experts regarding
how to facilitate students according to individual
difference, for which all type of students can be
benefitted.
5. Teachers with B.Ed. qualification should be encouraged
to be liberal and friendly to students in social science
class as it helps in understanding the learner and his
situation. Because understanding students and school
situation is essential to develop PCK.
Conclusion
Elementary education is the foundation of the pyramid of
edution system and also the social science is the mother of all
elementary subjects. Despite the numerous efforts that have
been made to improve teaching of social studies through
curriculum innovations and teacher upgrading, there seems to
be an impression that the main objectives of the subject have
not been achieved due to lack of pedagogical content
knowledge. So the educational authority must take necessary
steps to strengthen the pre-service and in-service teacher
education programmes in the light of PCK. Because the
quality of school education is mainly depends on the quality of
teachers and quality of teaching.
References
Bertram, Carol. & Maj Christiansen, Iben. (2012).Teacher
caknowledge and learning perspectives and reflections.
Journal of Education. Periodical of the Kenton Education
Association, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
Evens, Marie. Elen, Jan. and Depaepe, Fien. (2015).
Developing pedagogical content knowledge. Education
Research International. Centre for Instructional psychology

and technology, KU Leuven, Belgium.Hindawi publishing
Corporation.
Gudmundsdottir, S. & Shulman, Lee. (1987). Pedagogical
content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research. Taylor & Francis Group, 5 Howick
Place, London.
Jaipal, Kamini. (2009). Meaning making through multiple
modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics
discourse analysis. Wiley Inter Science. New work city.
United States.
Kabir, Humayun. (2012). Education in New India. Literary
Licensing, United States.
Mohalik, R. & Sethy, R. (2017). Impact of Rastriya
Madhyamik Shiksha Abhijan (RMSA) on School
Improvement at Secondary Level in Jharkhand.RIE,
Bhubaneswar, NCERT.
NCERT. (2005). National Curriculum Framework-
2005.NCERT, New Delhi.
Nilsson, Pernilla. (2008). The complex nature of pedagogical
content knowledge in pre-service Education. International
Journal of Science Education. Halmstad University, Taylor
&Francis Group. London. 30 (10), pp.1281-1299.
Risko, Victoria, J. Roller, and Cathy M. etla. (2008). A critical
analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading
Research Quarterly. Teaching, Learning and Sociocultural
Studies. University of Arizona-Elsevier, 43(3).

Use of pck by social science teachers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Use of pck by social science teachers

Similar to Use of pck by social science teachers (20)

More from Ramakanta Mohalik

More from Ramakanta Mohalik (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Use of pck by social science teachers