When CTCA is being implemented, students are engaged in activities which demand that they (a) draw on their topic-relevant indigenous (cultural) knowledge; (b) use technology to seek pre-lesson knowledge of the topic to be taught; (c) work in groups to share knowledge gleaned from their socio-cultural interactions and web-based resources; (d) draw on their prior knowledge of the topic when class is in session and (e) relate lesson examples to their local contexts. In seeking a theory base for CTCA based on the foregoing, which existing theory does the cap fit?
With the five orientations of CTCA, it is obvious that several theories will “present their heads” to fit the CTCA theoretical framework cap. Two of these stand out. Orientations (a), (b), (c) and (e) of CTCA fit smugly with Vygosky’s theory of social constructivism. Orientation (a) (d) and (e) relate well with Ausubel’s subsumption theory. So, here we have in our hands, two theory bases for CTCA. Because of seeming overlap of the flavours of several educational theories, it is possible to straddle the theoretical framework of CTCA beyond these two. However, the decision is swayed in favour of the Vygotsky-Ausubel framework. How does the theory base of CTCA fit with Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism and Ausubel’s subsumption theory? These are the two questions to be addressed next.