Pros And Cons Of Culturally Responsive Teaching

Theoretical Framework/Perspectives
My research will be chiefly guided by the lens of culturally responsive pedagogy to explore EFL practices in context of Nepal. “Culturally Responsive Teaching”, as per the definition of Gloria Ladson-Billing, is an approach that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using culturally referents to impact knowledge, skills and attitudes. (cited in Sealey-Ruiz, 2006). The term culturally responsive teaching or culturally responsive pedagogy was first used by Gay (2000) and Villegas & Lucas (2002) to describe teaching that recognizes all students learn differently and that these differences may be connected to background, language, family structure and social or cultural identity. However, the different terms having similar notion were already in use i.e. culturally appropriate (Au & Jordan, 1981), culturally congruent (Mahott & Erickson, 1981), mitigating cultural discontinuity (Macias, 1987), culturally compatible (Jordan, 1985; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1987), culturally relevant pedagogy (Gloria Ladson-Billings, 1995) and so on (cited from Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 67). All these terms more or less focused on culture as
Interpretive paradigm facilitates me to understand the multiple perspectives of my research participants as how they have experienced about the use of CRP in the classroom. It also helps me engage in the field in culture sensitive manner and to explore whether the EFL classes are conducted in a cultural friendly manner or not. On the other hand, critical paradigm helps me to understand the unjust society or unjust pedagogical practices in EFL classes. It facilitates me to see the domination of western practices in our classroom. Furthermore, it will empower me to unpack the teaching complexities of EFL classes and seek some solutions critically over the existing