TY  - CONF
AU  - Milin, Vladeta
PY  - 2022
UR  - http://ipir.ipisr.org.rs/handle/123456789/966
AB  - Practically all didactic textbooks and manuals more or less explicitly emphasize
the importance of structuring in teaching. Authors often stress that teachers
should begin the lesson with an overview, gradually present the material, and
repeat the most important parts of the lesson at the end of the lecture (Trnavac &
Đorđević, 2010; Vilotijević, 1999). These procedures mainly pertain to the organization
of teaching activities, and we refer to them as structuring lessons. In literature, there
are also recommendations regarding students linking the current topic with previously
processed content, students connecting the content with topics addressed in other
teaching subjects, and so forth (Pešikan, 2001; Šefer, 1991). This form of structuring
could be labeled as structuring knowledge.
Some papers have presented these two forms of structuring conjointly, within
one single concept (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008). On the other hand, these types
of structuring could be perceived as manifestations of two quite distinct didactical
approaches. Structuring lessons implies the expectation that the teacher would lead,
manage, and control the teaching practice. Therefore, structuring lessons corresponds
to adult-run practice (Rogoff, 1996) or traditional or transmissive education (Ivić,Pešikan & Antić, 2001; Havelka, 2000). Conversely, structuring knowledge reflects
an orientation toward students, i.e., the development of their cognitive processes and
intellectual capabilities. This approach could be viewed as a manifestation of a childcentered
approach (Sugrue, 2002) or constructivist teaching/constructivist learning in
class (Mirkov, 2013; Vilotijević, 1999).
The aim of this study was to investigate whether both forms of structuring
were equally represented in the teaching practice in Serbia or whether one of them
was predominant (and if so, which one). The significance of the results lies in their
usefulness in discovering the predominant teacher orientation. Therefore, this paper
implicitly addresses the more general question of whether the education practice
in Serbia focuses on the activities of teachers (structuring lessons), student learning
(structuring knowledge), or both two forms of structuring equally.
PB  - Belgrade : Institute for Educational Research
C3  - The state, problems, and needs of the modern education community
T1  - Structuring lessons or structuring knowledge – what does it tell us about the teaching practice?
EP  - 70
SP  - 65
UR  - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_ipir_966
ER  - 

@conference{
author = "Milin, Vladeta",
year = "2022",
abstract = "Practically all didactic textbooks and manuals more or less explicitly emphasize
the importance of structuring in teaching. Authors often stress that teachers
should begin the lesson with an overview, gradually present the material, and
repeat the most important parts of the lesson at the end of the lecture (Trnavac &
Đorđević, 2010; Vilotijević, 1999). These procedures mainly pertain to the organization
of teaching activities, and we refer to them as structuring lessons. In literature, there
are also recommendations regarding students linking the current topic with previously
processed content, students connecting the content with topics addressed in other
teaching subjects, and so forth (Pešikan, 2001; Šefer, 1991). This form of structuring
could be labeled as structuring knowledge.
Some papers have presented these two forms of structuring conjointly, within
one single concept (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008). On the other hand, these types
of structuring could be perceived as manifestations of two quite distinct didactical
approaches. Structuring lessons implies the expectation that the teacher would lead,
manage, and control the teaching practice. Therefore, structuring lessons corresponds
to adult-run practice (Rogoff, 1996) or traditional or transmissive education (Ivić,Pešikan & Antić, 2001; Havelka, 2000). Conversely, structuring knowledge reflects
an orientation toward students, i.e., the development of their cognitive processes and
intellectual capabilities. This approach could be viewed as a manifestation of a childcentered
approach (Sugrue, 2002) or constructivist teaching/constructivist learning in
class (Mirkov, 2013; Vilotijević, 1999).
The aim of this study was to investigate whether both forms of structuring
were equally represented in the teaching practice in Serbia or whether one of them
was predominant (and if so, which one). The significance of the results lies in their
usefulness in discovering the predominant teacher orientation. Therefore, this paper
implicitly addresses the more general question of whether the education practice
in Serbia focuses on the activities of teachers (structuring lessons), student learning
(structuring knowledge), or both two forms of structuring equally.",
publisher = "Belgrade : Institute for Educational Research",
journal = "The state, problems, and needs of the modern education community",
title = "Structuring lessons or structuring knowledge – what does it tell us about the teaching practice?",
pages = "70-65",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_ipir_966"
}

Milin, V.. (2022). Structuring lessons or structuring knowledge – what does it tell us about the teaching practice?. in The state, problems, and needs of the modern education community
Belgrade : Institute for Educational Research., 65-70.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_ipir_966

Milin V. Structuring lessons or structuring knowledge – what does it tell us about the teaching practice?. in The state, problems, and needs of the modern education community. 2022;:65-70.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_ipir_966 .

Milin, Vladeta, "Structuring lessons or structuring knowledge – what does it tell us about the teaching practice?" in The state, problems, and needs of the modern education community (2022):65-70,
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_ipir_966 .