Teacher’s Implementation of Teaching

Strategiesin Teaching
STUDENT NAME Madhu Shari

STUDENTREGISTRATIONNUMBER 241D1R1002 CLASS:CSE

STUDYLEVEL : Ph.D YEARandTERM:1styear&3rdterm
SUBJECTNAME Teaching Practice
Reflective Journal9
NAMEOFTHE ASSESSMENT
DATEOFSUBMISSION 09-08-2025
Instructor name: Dr.Gayatri Devi

Abstract

Modernteachingstrategiesincludestudents’abilitiesandinterestsandenablethemtobeactivelyinvolvedinpla
nning,
implementationandevaluationoftheeducationalprocess,allofwhichplaysadecisiveroleinacquiringadeeperin
sight into learning content, better content comprehension and long-lasting knowledge.
Inthefollowingresearch,weexaminedtheuseofdidacticstrategiesamongtheteachersteachingvarioussubject
s.We conducted the research as part of the project ‘Education of teachers as a factor of providing high-
quality, life-long learning in the learning society / the society of fast socio-economic changes and an
unsure future,’ funded by the SlovenianResearchAgency(ARRS).
350 teachers, teaching primary school students of grades from 6 to 9, participated in our research. We
selected a
stratifiedrandomsampleaccordingtostatisticalregions,including5%ofallSlovenianprimaryschools.One-
thirdofthe included teachers are multiple or single subject teachers; one-fifth are general teachers; and
a few are teachers of foreignlanguages,Slovene,physicaleducation(P.E.),mathandart.
Ourone-
factoranalysisofvarianceshowedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesintheuseofdifferentteachingstrategies
amongvarioussubjectteachers.Themoststatisticallysignificantdifferencesintheuseofproject-
basedandexperiential learning strategies were found among math and general education teachers.
Moreover, we found that in addition to problem- and research-based learning, experiential learning
strategies were the most commonly integrated in teaching all subjects.
These findings provide important insights into educational practice and can serve for further, more in-depth
empirical research.

Keywords

primaryschool;student;research;learningstrategies;teacher;teaching
Introduction
It is common knowledge that listening to a frontal explanation and learning from a
textbook areless appealing to students than active participation in classes enabled by
various teaching strategies, such as research- and problem-based learning strategies.
Students want to be actively involvedinthelearningprocessandtotakepartindecision-
making.Itisthereforeimportantthat
teachers consider students’ needs and wishes and encourage them to be active, thus
increasing their motivation, which contributes to better learning outcomes (Kovač,
2008; Mithans, 2017). This is why the teacher's role in modern schools has shifted
(Kalin et al., 2017; Tahirsylaj et al., 2021),
andtheteacherisnolongertheprimaryandsolesourceofknowledge(Holt-
Reynolds,2000;Blažič et al., 2003; Javornik Krečič, 2003b).

Teachers create conditions for quality work, guide students on the path to knowledge
and synchronously learn themselves (Blažič et al., 2003). It is precisely the teachers’
effectiveness that enables a quality educational process (Yar Yildirim, 2021).

Students are required to play an active role in the educational process of

contemporary schools, however, a large portion of this responsibility is placed on
teachers’ shoulders (Rebec& Skalec, 2015). Teachers are constantly expected to strive
for quality classes in which students are the subjects, while the teacher selects
learning strategies that allow students to actively co-create the learning process
(Kalin, 2011). Marentič Požarnik (2005) shares this viewpoint, claiming that the path to
quality knowledge in the classroom should be aimed at students rather than teachers.
Students should be active participants in the educational process (Štefanc, 2004).
Students should be subjects that are granted the possibility of active participation
(Mithans & Ivanuš Grmek, 2012; Blažič et al., 2003; Javornik Krečič, 2003).

The focus of independent and active learning is a two-way communication,

challenging the activity of the teacher and the students to express their own thoughts
and ideas (Ivanuš Grmek et al., 2009) and encouraging the active participation and
involvement of the students during the lesson (Mithans, 2017; Mithans et al., 2017).

Research results show that the traditional concept of teaching is still prevalent in
pedagogical practice (Javornik Krečič, 2003), which prevents students from developing
a subjective position (Čagran, 2011; Javornik Krečič& Konečnik Kotnik, 2011), so
students continue to have limited opportunities to participate in lesson planning and
implementation (Kovač, 2008; Gril et al., 2009; Kurt-Buchholz, 2011; Mithans, 2017).
The modest sustainability of knowledge at primary, secondary, and higher education
levels can be attributed to teaching based on the reproduction of what is heard and
read (Pelc, 2008). Pelc (2008) believes that students' acquired knowledge is more
sustainable and useful if they acquire it through their own activity during lessons.

In pedagogical practice, the above-mentioned requirements for most effective learning

are met most effectively by applying contemporary learning strategies, commonly
known as open learning (Blažič et al., 2003; Strmčnik, 2003). In accordance with these
learning strategies, learning objectives, content, and methods are tailored to students'
abilities and interests, allowing for learning differentiation, individualisation, and
student participation (Strmčnik, 2003). Consequently, the student’s role shifts from
passive listener to active creator of their own learning, and the knowledge gained
through these strategies is more long-lasting and useful (Alvia& Gillies, 2020; Cencič
et al., 2008; Fernandes, 2021). In order to effectively implement open learning, it
should be introduced gradually and with due care (Götz, 1993).
Our empirical research findings are presented below. The focus of our research is to
examine the use of teaching strategies among primary school teachers teaching a
variety of subjects.
Methods
Purposeoftheempiricalresearch

Based on the above presented statements, we were interested to find what teaching
strategies primary school teachers implement while teaching various subjects to
students from grades 6 to 9. We assumed that, depending on the specifics of each
subject, there would be statistically significant differences in their use of various
contemporary teaching strategies that encouraged open learning.

Researchmethod
Thisisanon-experimentalresearchwithacross-sectionaldesignandanon-sitequestionnaire.

Researchsample

Table 1 shows the measurement characteristics of the included sample. A total of 350
primary school teachers teaching grades 6 to 9 participated in the research. We
selected a random stratified representative sample by statistical region, including 5%
of Slovenian primary schools.

Table1.Demographiccharacteristicsofthesample

Characteristic n f% AV(SD)* Min.-Max.

female 296 85.1

Gender / /
male 52 14.9

25-35yearsold 61 17.8

36-45yearsold 120 35.1

Age 45.60(9.81) 25-66

46-55yearsold 90 26.3

56+yearsold 71 20.8

notitle 58 16.9

Professionaltitle mentor 110 32.0 / /

advisor 145 42.2

 councillor 31 9.0

pedagogical
329 94.8
education

Formal / /
education non-
pedagogical 18 5.2
education with
PAI

foreign
41 12.1
languages

Slovene 30 8.8

math 25 7.4

P.E. 30 8.8

Subjectarea / /
artsubjects 21 6.2

general
61 18.0
education

multiple 116 34.2

subjects

other
15 4.4
professionals

Legend: * - AV = average value; SD = standard deviation; / - it was not possible to

calculate according to the type of test variables.

Table 1 shows that 85.1% of female teachers participated in the research. The
participants’ average age is 45.6 years. There is a standard deviation of 10 years,
implying that the majority of participating teachers are between the ages of 36 and
56. This is confirmed by the frequency distribution of the sample according to age
category, which shows that 61.4% teachers are between the ages of 36 and 55. The
oldest participating teacher is 66 and the youngest is 25 years old. Depending on the
age range, the majority of participants, 42.2%, have already attained thetitle of
councillor or mentor, 32.0%. 94.8% were formally educated before beginning their
teaching profession, and 18 of the participating teachers obtained a vocational
qualification for the teaching profession through pedagogical training (PAI).

Ourresearchincludesone-
thirdor34.2%ofsubjectteacherswhoteachtwoormoresubjects,one- fifth or 18.0% of
general teachers, about one-tenth or 12.1% of foreign language teachers, 8.8% of
Slovenian language teachers, 8.8% of physical education teachers, 7.4% of math
teachers, and 6.2% of art teachers. A small proportion, 4.4%, of other professional
school workers also participated, however, they were excluded from further analysis
because they were not involved in direct work with students in the classroom.
Proceduresforthecollectionandprocessingofdata
A quantitative structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions was used to
collect the data. The questionnaire was designed in accordance with previous research
and findings related to the integration of teaching strategies in primary school
teaching. The participating teachers evaluated the frequency of use of individual
teaching strategies through 14 evaluated claims, each claim having a three-point
scale with 3 meaning frequently, 2 rarely, and 1 never. Five teachingstrategies were
evaluated: ‘research-based learning,’ ‘problem-based learning,’ ‘experiential learning,’
‘project-based learning,’ and ‘cross-curricular learning.

We used different statistical tests to analyse the data. All analyses were carried out
with theversion 26.0 SPSS statistical programme. First, descriptive statistics rates
were calculated for all
variables.Weusedthecalculationoffrequenciesandpercentages,aswellasthecalculationof
the dimensions of the front values and the dimensions of the data dispersion,
depending on the type of variable (average value, standard deviation). The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality of distribution and the Levene test of variance
homogeneity were used to ensure compliance with the
conditionsforinferentialstatistics.Asingle-
factoranalysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasusedtosearch
fordifferencesinteachers'useofteachingstrategiesbasedonthesubjectstheyteach.TheShe
ffe test, which is suitable for comparing groups of different sizes, was used to
determine the differences between individual compared subjects. Non-parametric
ANOVA measures, namely the WelchtestandtheBrown-
Forsythetest,wereusedtoanalysevariablesforwhichtheconditionsfor F statistics were not
met, either because the assumption of homogeneity of variances between the
compared groups was not accepted or because the data were not distributed
normally. Differences in value P ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The
effect measures of the obtained statistical test results were also considered in the
interpretation of results.

Resultsand interpretation
Table 2 shows the teaching strategies that teachers consider to be the most
commonly used in primary school instruction. Problem-based learning strategies
(AV=2.70) are the most commonly used, followed by research-based learning
(AV=2.58), experiential learning (AV=2.55), and cross-
curricularlearningstrategies(AV=2.44).Project-
basedlearningistheleastrepresented(AV=2.01). The participating teachers were the
most unanimous (SD=0.28) when evaluating the integration of research-based
learning strategies. 75.2% claim they use them frequently. The most diverse opinions
were expressed in the self-evaluation of teaching with the project-based approach
(SD=0.60), which is used frequently by 34.6% and used never by 11.6% of teachers.
Table2.Teachingstrategiesmostfrequentlyusedbyteachers

TEACHERS
Teachingstrategy
AV(SD)*

PROBLEM-BASEDLEARNING 2.70(0.35)

RESEARCH-BASEDLEARNING 2.58(0.28)

EXPERIENTIALLEARNING 2.55(0.45)

cross-curricular learning 2.44(0.39)

PROJECT-BASEDLEARNING 2.01(0.60)

Legend:*AV=averagevalue;SD=standarddeviation;scale:1-never,2-rarely,3-frequently

Table 3. Identification of teaching strategy differences according to subject

Levenetest ANOVA
Strategy Welchtest Brown-Forsythetest
(p) F (p)

PROJECT-BASED 19.776
0.269 / /
LEARNING (<0.001)

PROBLEM-BASED 3.868 3.543

<0.001 /
LEARNING (0.002) (0.003)

RESEARCH-BASED 5.359
0.207 / /
LEARNING (<0.001)

cross-curricular 3.949 3.813

0.006 /
learning (0.001) (0.001)

EXPERIENTIAL 33.613 27.626

<0.001 /
LEARNING (<0.001) (<0.001)

Legend: ANOVA - single-factor analysis of variance; / -the test could not be calculated
according to the type of variables.

Table 3 shows the results of testing statistically significant differences in the use of
individual teaching strategies among teachers of different subjects. A single-factor
analysis of variance showed that there are statistically significant differences between
teachers using all teaching strategies while teaching individual subjects, as shown in
Table 3. At a risk level of less than 1%, differences in the use of all strategies were
statistically significant. In this regard, the partial eta square (ηp2) showed medium
effects of differences between teachers teaching different subjects while integrating
experiential learning strategies (33.5% of the explained variance), project-based
learning strategies (27.3%), and a small percentage of effects for research-based
learning strategies(9.4%),cross-curricularlearningstrategies(7.3%)andproblem-
basedstrategies(7.3%). The observed power of analysis in all statistically significant
analyses was greater than 0.80, confirming the model's appropriate statistical
strength or justification.
Multiple comparisons using Post Hoc testing (Scheffe test) revealed several
statistically significant differences in the use of teaching strategies among the various
groups of the analysed teachers. Statistically significant differences are shown in
Table 4. The most statistically significant differences in the use of individual teaching
strategies were found among math teachers (n=12) and general teachers (n=12),
followed by the P.E. (n=8), foreign language (n=6), art (n=6), and Slovene language
(n=4) teachers.

Table 4.Multiple comparisons of learning strategy differences in accordance with the

subject (ANOVA, Scheffe test)
 AV Difference
Strategy Subject Comparedarea P
(SD)* of
averages(I-J)

P.E. 2.31(0.47 -0.418 0.010

artsubjects 2.51(0.40) -0.615 <0.001

math Slovene 2.71(0.30) -0.818 <0.001

(AV=1.89,
foreign 2.77
SD=0.38) -0.879 <0.001
languages (0.26)

general
2.87(0.20) -0.973 <0.001
education

Slovene 2.71(0.30) -0.400 0.009

P.E. foreign 2.77

-0.461 <0.001
(AV=2.31, languages (0.26)
EXPERIENTIAL
LEARNING SD=0.47)
general
2.87(0.20) -0.556 <0.001
education

artsubjects
general 2.87
(AV=2.51, -0.359 0.027
education (0.20)
SD=0.40)

foreign 2.77
-0.284 0.008
languages (0.26)
multiplesubjects
(AV=2.49, math 1.90(0.38) 0.595 <0.001
SD=0.45)
general
2.87(0.20) -0.378 <0.001
education

Slovene 2.25(0.52) -0.850 <0.001

math
general
(AV=1.40, 2.39(0.44) -0.993 <0.001
education
SD=0.38)
artsubjects 2.52(0.51) 1.124 <0.001

Slovene 2.25(0.52) -0.600 0.003

P.E.
general
(AV=1.65, 2.39(0.44) -0.743 <0.001
education
SD=0.42)
artsubjects 2.52(0.51) -0.874 <0.001
PROJECT-BASED
LEARNING general
foreign 2.39(0.44) -0.552 <0.001
education
languages
(AV=1.84,
SD=0.57) artsubjects 2.52(0.51) -0.682 <0.001

math 1.40(0.38) 0.548 <0.001

multiplesubjects
artsubjects 2.52(0.51) -0.576 0.001
(AV=1.95,
SD=0.56) general
2.39(0.44) -0.446 <0.001
education
 general math 2.40(0.28) 0.313 0.001
RESEARCH- education
BASEDLEARNING (AV=2.71, foreign
SD=0.23) 2.48(0.27) 0.233 0.008
languages

math
cross-curricular (AV=2.23, general 2.58
-0.347 0.026
learning SD=0.55) education (0.33)

P.E.
PROBLEM-BASED general
AV=2.52, 2.81(0.22) -0.289 0.027
LEARNING education
SD=0.46)

Legend:*-AV=averagevalue;SD=standarddeviation;scale:1-never,2-rarely,3-frequently

As seen in Table 4, the ‘experiential learning’ (n=12) and ‘project-based learning’

(n=11) strategies show the most statistically significant differences between the
teachers of the six analysed subjects. Teaching method differences of these subjects
seem to be less related to the use of research-based, cross-curricular, and problem-
based learning strategies.

Compared to the other six subjects, math teachers are statistically significantly less
likely to use experiential learning strategies (P ≤ 0.010). Similarly, P.E. teachers
estimate that they use experiential lessons less frequently than Slovene, foreign
language, and generaleducation teachers (P< 0.010). Teachers of art subjects use
experiential learning strategies even less frequently, especially when compared to
subjects where experiential learning strategies are most frequently used, such as
general education (P< 0.05). Teachers who teach at least two or more subjects believe
they include statistically significantly more experiential learning strategies in their
teaching than single-subject math teachers and statistically significantly less than
foreign language and general education teachers (P < 0.010).

According to teachers, project-based learning strategies are statistically significantly

less common in math, P.E. and foreign language subjects. Statistically significant
differences were found in all three subjects when compared to Slovene, general
education, and art classes, where teachers reported a more frequent use of project-
based learning strategies. At a risk level of less than 1%, all comparisons were
statistically significant. Teachers teaching multiple subjects note astatistically
significant more frequent use of project-based learning strategies in their teaching
than math teachers and statistically significantly less frequent use of project-based
learning strategies than art subjects and general education teachers (P ≤ 0.001).

Incomparisonwiththegeneraleducationteachers,whousetheresearch-
basedlearningstrategies more frequently (AV=2.71), the math teachers (A = 0.001)
and foreign language teachers (A = 0.008) use these strategies statistically
significantly less frequently. Similarly, in math classes, cross-curricular learning
strategies are less frequently used, compared to general education classes (A =
0.026). Teachers of general education include problem-solving strategies in their
teaching significantly more frequently than teachers of P.E. (A = 0.027).
Conclusion
Teaching is a reciprocal activity of students and teachers in which learning, the
activity of the students, and teaching, as the activity of the teacher, are
interconnected (Adamič, 2005). The goal of this reciprocal activity is to assist and
encourage students to learn as independently and creatively as possible (Strmčnik,
2001). The quality of teaching has a direct impact on the quality and acquisition of
knowledge (Adamič, 2005; Hattie, 2008; Rowe, 2003; Timperley& Alton-Lee,
2008).Asaresult,qualityteachingistheessentialfactorinsuccessfullearning(Adamič,2005).
But it is necessary to be aware that learning is determined by the student's prior
knowledge, the student's perception of a situation and previous experience with this
learning situation (Košir et al., 2020).

It is the responsibility of teachers to adapt their teaching to contemporary times and

their students’ needs, as the effectiveness of their teaching depends largely on the
effectiveness of the whole educational process (Yar Yildirim, 2021). One path to a
better educational process is undoubtedly the well-planned and thought-out use and
combination of various teaching strategies.

In the context of open teaching strategies, attention is being paid to adapting the
learning process to different learners and linking their prior knowledge with their past
and present experience.Strong emphasis is placed on identifying students' unique
abilities and interests, as well as strengthening the individualisation of the learning
process (Blažič et al., 2003; Filippatou& Kaldi, 2010).

The purpose of the presented empirical research was to examine which teaching
strategies are used by primary school teachers teaching various subjects.

According to teacher self-evaluation, teachers most frequently included problem-

based learning strategies (AV=2.70), followed by research-based learning strategies
(AV=2.58),experiential learning strategies (AV=2.53), and cross-curricular learning
strategies (AV=2.45). Teachers rarely used project-based learning strategies
(AV=2.03).

The research findings reveal that there are statistically significant differences in the
use of all teaching strategies among teachers of different subjects (experiential
learning, project-based learning, research-based learning, cross-curricular learning,
problem-based learning). The most statistically significant differences in the use of
individual teaching strategies were found among math teachers (n=12) and general
education teachers (n=12), followed by P.E. teachers (n=8),
foreignlanguageteachers(n=6),artsubjectteachers(n=6),andSlovenelanguageteachers
(n=4).

The use of experiential learning strategies (n=12) and project-based learning

strategies (n=11) revealed the most statistically significant differences. Lesser
differences in teaching methods, on the other hand, were associated with the use of
research-, cross-curricular-, and problem-based learning strategies.

Accordingtothefindingsofourresearch,teachersbelievetheyuseavarietyofteachingstrate
gies in their classes. Project-based learning strategies are among the least used
strategies, which can
beattributedtothefactthatthisstrategyextendsbeyondtheframeworkofclassicallearning
strategies.Thisalsosuggeststhatthereisnocontent,organisational,temporal,orspatial
limitation for integrating the project-based learning strategies (Čagran et al., 2011).
Learning about interdisciplinarylearningtopicsinthecontextofproject-
basedlearningisdifficult.Inaddition, project-
basedlearningrequirescarefulplanning,thepreparationofastimulatinglearningenvironme
nt,activeparticipationofstudents,andfrequently,theinvolvementofother,external
experts.Also,inaresearchbyJančičandHus(2019),withapurposetoexaminetherepresentat
ion of teaching strategies used in the 4 th and 5th grades, results showed that it is the
project-
basedlearningthattheteachersusemostseldom.Teachershighlightedthatthereasonfor
notusingproject-basedlearning toalargerextentisalackoftimeandtoomanystudents
inclass.

Thus, the complexity of implementing the afore-mentioned learning strategies is most

certainly one of the reasons for their less frequent use in practice.

As evident from participating teachers’ perspective, various strategies are integrated

in the regular teaching. With our following research, we shall also examine the
students' perspectives and compare them to the teachers’.

Regardless of our research findings, we can conclude that the quality of pedagogical
practice depends on its institutions, and particularly its teachers, who must constantly
educate and upgrade their pedagogical, didactic, and methodical knowledge in order
to successfully perform their profession.

References
Adamič,M.(2005).Vlogapoučevanja[Theroleofteaching].Sodobnapedagogika,56(1).76–
88.

Alvia,E.&Gillies,R.M.(2020).Promotingself-
regulatedlearningthroughexperientiallearningin
theearlyyearsofschool:aqualitativecasestudy.EuropeanJournalofTeacherEducation,44
(2), 135–157. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1728739

Blažič, M., Ivanuš Grmek, M., Kramar, M. & Strmčnik, F. (2003). Didaktika: visokošolski
učbenik [ Didactics: Higher education textbooks]. Visokošolsko središče, Inštitut za
raziskovalno in razvojno delo.

Cencič, M., Cotič, M. & Medved Udovič, V. (2008). Pouk v družbi znanja [Education in
Knowledge Society]. In V. Medved Udovič, M. Cotič & M. Cencič (Eds.), Sodobne strategije
učenja in poučevanja [Modernlearningandteachingstrategies], (pp.8–
15).UniverzanaPrimorskem,Pedagoška fakulteta.

Čagran,B.,Sadek,L.,&IvanušGrmek,M.(2011).Eksperimentalnopreverjanjeučinkov
projektnegapoukapripredmetuspoznavanjeokolja[Experimentalexaminationoftheeffect
sof
projectteachinginthesubjectEnvironmentalStudies].Revijazaelementarnoizobraževanje
,4 (1–2), 5–22.
Fernandes, H. V. J. (2021). From student to tutor: A journey in problem-based learning.
Currents
inPharmacyTeachingandLearning,13(12),1706–1709.doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2021.09.037
Filippatou,D.&Kaldi,S.(2010).TheEffectivenessofProject-BasedLearningonPupilswith
Learning Difficulties Regarding Academic Performance, Group Work and Motivation.
International JournalofSpecialEducation,25(1),17–26. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890562.pdf

Götz,M.(1993).OffenerUnterrich–ModellevongesternfürdieSchulevonheute?
[Openclasses-
yesterday'smodelsfortoday'sschools?]InP.Hell(Eds.),ÖffnungdesUnterrichtinder
Grundschule[Opening of classes in elementary school], (pp. 9–23). Ludwig Auer GmbH.

Gril, A., Klemenčič, E., & Autor, S. (2009).

Udejstvovanjemladihvdružbi[Participationofyouthin society]. Pedagoški inštitut.

Hattie,J.(2008).Visiblelearning:Asynthesisofover800meta-analysesrelatingtoachievement.
Hoboken. Taylor & Francis.

Holt-Reynolds,D.
(2000).Whatdoestheteacherdo?:Constructivistpedagogiesandprospective
teachers’beliefsabouttheroleofateacher.TeachingandTeacherEducation,16(1),21–32.doi:

Jančič, P. & Hus, V. (2019). Representation of teaching strategies based on

constructivism insocial studies, Int. J. Innovation and Learning, 25(1), 64–77.

JavornikKrečič,M.(2003).Aktivnostisrednješolcevpriobravnavinoveučnesnovi.Jeaktivnost
dijakovpripoukuvskladussodobnimididaktičnimikoncepti?
[Activitiesofsecondaryschoolpupils
whentreatingnewsubjectmatter.Ispupilactivityduringclasscongruentwithmodern
didacticalconcepts?] Vzgoja in izobraževanje, 34(6), 20–25.

JavornikKrečič,M.,&KonečnikKotnik,E.
(2011).Nekateredidaktičnometodičneznačilnostipoukav
šolahnadvojezičnihobmočjihobslovenskimeji[Somedidacticmethodicalcharacteristicsofsc
hool
instructioninbilingualareasalongtheSloveneborder].Revijazaelementarnoizobraževanje,4
(1–2), 23–34.

Kalin, J. (2011). Fleksibilni predmetnik –usmeritve in aktualni izzivi osnovne šole

[Flexible curriculum - orientations and current challenges of primary school]. In F.
Nolimal, J. Kalin, B. Marentič-
Požarnik;M.Sardoč;T.Bregant;M.Voglar;A.Fidler&M.Čas(Eds.),Fleksibilni
predmetnikinaktualniizziviosnovnešole,Zbornikprispevkovstrokovnegaposveta[Flexi
ble
curriculumandcurrentchallengesofprimaryschool,Proceedingsoftheexpertconference
],(pp. 11–13). Zavod RS za šolstvo.

Kalin, J., Peklaj, C.; Pečjak, S.; Puklek Levpušček, M. & Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2017).
Elementary and Secondary School Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Classroom
Management Competencies. CEPS journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal,
7(4), 37–62.

Košir, K., Vršnik Perše, T., Ograjšek, S., & Ivanuš Grmek, M. (2020). Spodbujanje
aktivnega študija,
kotgazaznavajoštudenti[PromotingActiveLearningasPerceivedbyStudents].Andragoška
spoznanja, 26(2), 33–46.
Kovač, T. (2008). Vpliv participacije učencev na kakovost vzgojno-izobraževalnega dela
šole [The influenceofpupils’participationonthequalityofschools’educationalwork]
[Doctoraldisertation].
UniverzavLjubljani:Filozofskafakulteta.Oddelkezapedagogikoinandragogiko.

Kurth Buchholz, E. (2011). Schülermitbestimmung aus Sicht von Schülern und

Lehrern: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung an Gymnasien in Brandenburg und
Nordrhein-Westfalen
[Studentparticipationfromthestudentsandteachers’viewpoint:acomparativestudybetwe
en schoolsinBrandenburgandNorthRhine-Westphalia].WaxmannVerlag.

Marentič Požarnik, B. (2005). Spreminjanjeparadigmepoučevanja in učenja ternjunega

odnosa –
edentemeljnihizzivovsodobnegaizobraževanja[Changingtheparadigmofteachingandlear
ning, and their relationship - a key callenge of contemporary education]. Sodobna
pedagogika, 56(1), 58–74.

Mithans, M. (2017).Participacijaučencevpripoukuinnašoli[Studentparticipationinthe
classroomandintheschool]
[Doctoraldisertation].UniverzavMariboru:Pedagoškafakulteta. Oddelek za razredni
pouk.

Mithans, M.; Ivanuš Grmek, M. & Čagran, B. (2017). Participation in decision-making in

class:opportunities and student attitudes in Austria and Slovenia. CEPS journal: Center for
EducationalPolicy Studies Journal, 7(4), 165–183.

Mithans, M., & Ivanuš Grmek, M. (2012). Spreminjanje položaja učenca v Sloveniji v 20.
stoletju[Changes in pupilsʹ situation in Slovenia in the 20th century]. Revija za elementarno
izobraževanje,5(2/3), 55–72.

Pelc, S. (2008). Vpliv zahtev sodobne družbe na strategije učenja in poučevanja [The
influence ofmodern society on learning and teaching strategies]. InV. Medved Udovič,
M. Cotič & M. Cencič(Eds.), Sodobne strategije učenja in poučevanja [Modern learning
and teaching strategies], (pp.3–7). Univerza na Primorskem: Pedagoška fakulteta.
Strmčnik, F. (2001). Didaktika:osrednjeteoretičneteme[Didactics: central theoretical
topics]. Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.

Strmčnik,F.
(2003).Didaktičneparadigme,konceptiinstrategije[Didacticsparadigms,concepts and
strategies]. Sodobna pedagogika, 54(1), 80–92.

Štefanc,D.
(2005).Pouk,učenjeinaktivnostučencev:razgradnjapedagoškihfantazem[Pupils'
education,learningandactivity:breakingdownpedagogicmyths].Sodobnapedagogika,
56(1), 34–57.

Tahirsylaj,A.,Smith,W.C.;Khan,G.&Wermke,W.(2021).Theconceptualandmethodological
construction of a ʼglobalʼ teacher identity through TALIS. CEPS journal: Center for
Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11(3), 75–94.

Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An

alternative
policyapproachtostrengtheningvaluedoutcomesfordiverselearners.ReviewofResearchi
n Education, 32(1), 328–369. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07308968

Yar Yildirim, V. (2021). The Opinions of Effective Teachers about Their Preferred
Teaching Methods and Techniques. International Online Journal of Education and
Teaching, 8(1), 76–94. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1286677

2nd
InternationalScientificandArtFaculty
ofTeacher
EducationUniversityofZagrebConfere
nce
ContemporaryThemesinEducation–CTE2-
inmemoriamprof.
emer.dr.sc.MilanMatijević,Zagreb,Croatia

Primjenanastavnihstrategijaodstranenastavnikarazličitihpred
metnih područja

Sažetak
Suvremene nastavne strategije uzimaju u obzir sposobnosti i interese učenika te im omogućuju aktivno
uključivanje u planiranje, provedbu i procjenu obrazovnog procesa. To znatno pridonosi dubljem uvidu u
sadržaj učenja, boljem razumijevanju i trajnijem znanju.
Uokviruprojekta„Edukacijanastavnikakaočimbenikpružanjakvalitetnogcjeloživotnogučenjaudruštvuučenj
a/društvu brzihdruštveno-
ekonomskihpromjenainesigurnebudućnosti”,financiranogodstraneSlovenskeistraživačkeagencije (ARRS),
ispitali smo korištenje didaktičkih strategija nastavnika različitih predmetnih područja.
U ispitivanju je sudjelovalo 350 nastavnika. Odabran je slučajni stratificirani reprezentativni uzorak po
statističkim
regijama(5%svihslovenskihosnovnihškola).Trećinuuključenihnastavnikačinepredmetninastavnicikojisupr
edavali dvije ili više kombinacija različitih školskih predmeta, jedna petina su razredni nastavnici i, u
manjoj mjeri, nastavnici stranih jezika, slovenskog jezika, sporta, matematike i umjetnosti.
Jednofaktorska analiza odstupanja pokazala je da postoje statistički značajne razlike u korištenju različitih
nastavnih
strategijameđunastavnicimapojedinihpredmetnihpodručja.Statističkinajznačajnijerazlikeukorištenjupojedinih
strategijaučenjapronađenesukodnastavnikamatematikeirazrednenastave.Statističkinajznačajnijerazlikepokaz
ale su se u korištenju projektne nastave i iskustveno orijentirane nastave. Uz problemsku nastavui
istraživački podržanu
nastavu,iskustvenanastavabilajeinajčešćanastavnastrategija,bezobziranapredmetnopodručje.
Ovizaključcipružajuvažneuvideuobrazovnupraksuimoguposlužitizadaljnja,dubljaempirijskaistraživanja.

Ključneriječi

nastava;osnovnaškola;učenik;anketnoistraživanje;nastavnestrategije;nastavnik

Številkarevizije#10
Ustvaril11November202201:33:26uporabnikJanko
Posodobil13January202311:15:05uporabnikValentinaGučec
View publication stats