Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:9
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:5

Sadržaj

članak: 9 od 18  
Back povratak na rezultate
2022, vol. 56, br. 3, str. 954-977
Škola kao vaspitni kontekst za razvoj socijalne kompetencije učenika
aUniverzitet u Beogradu, Učiteljski fakultet, Nastavno odeljenje, Novi Pazar
bUniverzitet u Beogradu, Učiteljski fakultet

e-adresamirsada.ljajic@uf.bg.ac.rs, ivko.nikolic@uf.bg.ac.rs
Ključne reči: školska sredina; socijalna kompetencija učenika; socijalni konstruktivizam
Sažetak
U radu se metodom teorijske analize razmatraju mogućnosti razvoja socijalne kompetencije učenika u školi. Od škole se očekuje da svoj način rada sa učenicima prilagodi novim potrebama, kako bi se iz niza individualnih i socijalnih sposobnosti razvili pojedini segmenti kao kapacitet za socijalnu uspešnost - socijalna kompetentnost. Škola svojom vaspitnom misijom, u okviru koje je uloga nastavnika ključna, podstiče socijalne kompetencije kroz: sticanje i proširivanje socijalnih znanja učenika i razumevanje socijalne stvarnosti; skretanje pažnje učenika na tuđa osećanja i interese; podsticanje alternativnih interpretacija tuđeg ponašanja; pružanje pomoći učenicima u aktivnom učestvovanju u raspravama; pružanje pomoći učenicima u otkrivanju zajedničkih obeležja; potkrepljivanje komunikacije između učenika (negovanje verbalne i neverbalne komunikacije); podsticanje konstruktivne saradnje među učenicima; jačanje empatije i jačanje altruizma.

Introduction

Within the framework of new pedagogical research that is focused on the position of students in the education process, there is also the issue of conceptualizing social skills and social competence. It strives to develop a repertoire of positives and to eliminate negatives, i.e., socially unacceptable forms of behaviour, to increase interpersonal efficiency, prepare for common life, as well as improve the quality of students’ life in the community, or the school itself. It is necessary to influence the development competence seriously, in a planned manner, with adequate methods, means and contents - which points us to an important dimension of competence - education (Zukorlić, 2016, p. 98). In arriving at one of the many possible answers, we will start from the position of a number of authors that the essential characteristic of the concept of social competence is actually dealing with the efficiency of the interaction of individuals with the social environment (Wine & Smye, 1981, Šimić-Šašić, 2011, Zukorlić, 2017. It is about the creation of individuals in different areas of life within an organized society - from the family, peer groups, school, local environment, cultural and other levels developed in modern communities. That is why learning and studying at school are not limited only to the acquisition of knowledge and skills, but also to the development of the student’s personality (creativity, self-confidence, self-esteem), as well as to the development of social competences. Therefore, they are aimed at achieving higher goals - stimulating the development of these skills, helping students to overcome their social inhibitions and fears, while at the same time strengthening their self-confidence and sense of responsibility (Roeders, 2003). “School plays, as Durkheim also observed, an important role in the homogenization of society, through the development of values, moral principles, performing pro-systemic socialization” (Šuvaković, 2020, p. 153). This process in education is described by different terms in the literature: socioemotional learning (Ireland), personal and social education (Czech Republic), character education (Denmark), social learning (Austria and Germany), personal development and health education (Finland), socioemotional education (Greece and Spain) (Cefai, Bartolo, Cavioni & Downes, 2018). In Serbia, the term socioemotional learning is used. Searching for a universal definition of socioemotional learning, we came across one of the most accepted - the definition of a group of researchers gathered around an organization dealing with research and promotion of socioemotional learning, the Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), which was supplemented in 2020 (26 years after the recognition of the concept of socioemotional learning) and according to which it represents

“a process by which all young people and adults acquire and apply knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships and make responsible decisions” (Kovačević-Lepojević, et al., 2021, according to: CASEL, 2020).

According to the above definition, socioemotional learning would be considered a “means” that helps to point out various forms of inequality and that encourages young people and adults to actively participate in improving the school context and t contribute to safe and healthy communities. That is, the individual is expected “...to actively relate to the environment and to develop his autonomy” (Ivanović, S., 1997, p. 161). It should be borne in mind that, in the school context, socio-emotional learning takes place under the “educational baton” of teachers, that is, it is left to them as the main implementers (Kovačević-Lepojević, et al., 2021, according to: CASEL, 2020).

In line with the above-mentioned, the development of students’ social competence through educational work in the school and within the framework it offers provides the opportunity to achieve students’ personal and social development, along with the priority of acquiring knowledge and skills. It is important to point out that social skills and social competence are closely related constructs; however, “social skills represent a narrower concept than social competence and most often include communication, problem-solving and decision-making, interaction among peers and tolerance, while social competence reflects the way an individual uses acquired skills in different social contexts” (Bakoč and Kaljača, 2019, p. 12). When it comes to forms of encouraging the development of students’ social competence at school, they would gain full meaning if they are implemented as an integral part of educational activities within the department, because in this way the problem of decontextualization of social behaviour is avoided. Since educational work requires planning, it means that the forms of social interaction must be structured to a certain extent in advance. In addition, forms of encouraging the development of social competence should be seen in the context of teacher-student and student-student interaction as equally important relationships.

Theoretical and methodological orientation of the paper

The social dimension of the educational process has special importance in the theory of social constructivism, whose assumptions have immediate relevance as one of the directions within the new philosophical theory - constructivism, which is much more than just alternative teaching methods (Windschitl, 1999). It represents a recapitulation of the ideas created by John Dewey and other educational progressives, whose ideas are based on the concept of active students. Although within the social-constructivist perspective, diverse, and in some domains, even contradictory directions or schools of thought are encountered, when considering issues in the field of education, the authors most often refer to Vygotsky’s social constructivism (Davis & Sumara, 2002; Jordan et al., 2008; Palincsar, 1998). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes the importance of social context and cultural influences in facilitating human development, as well as the central role of social interactions in the learning process. Thus, the understanding that collaborative activities, and especially interactive relationships between students in the problem-solving process, contribute to the joint construction of knowledge, representing a direct reflection of the mentioned theory. According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, the student’s role is to enter into interactive relationships with the teacher in order to develop voluntary attention, logical memory and abstract thinking in cooperation. In recent times, within the framework of neo-Vygotskian perceptions, learning has been seen as participation in a community of students. Knowledge is understood as socially shared cognition that is “co-constructed” within the community of participants (Green & Gredler, 2002). That is why the assumptions of social constructivism are of immediate importance for the conceptualization of educational work at school (Milutinović, 2011), and it is especially important for understanding interaction in teaching, which implies cooperation in the learning process, joint work on discovering solutions and solving problems, as well as joint research of knowledge. Understood in this way, constructivism implies certain patterns by which students interact with their peers, certain relationships with teachers, and ways of learning the content of the curriculum. Moreover, the assumption is that there is an adequate connection in the student-teacher relationship, their communication patterns and assessment methods. Therefore, it is indisputable that social constructivism has significant implications for the improvement of pedagogical theory and practice. Consequently, considering the educational work at school as interactive, strategies for encouraging students’ social skills (acquiring and expanding the necessary knowledge for a better understanding of social reality; teaching students to focus their attention on other people’s feelings and interests; developing students’ ability to interpret other people’s behaviour in an alternative way; active participation of students in discussions; orientation of students towards the discovery of common characteristics with other students; encouraging the development of the ability of constructive cooperation (corroboration) among students; encouraging the development of empathy among students; encouraging the development of altruism among students...) can be applied (processed) through the implementation of the contents of teaching subjects, so it is justified to expect them to become an imperative of educational work with students.

The school environment as an educational context for the development of students’ social competence

The school environment has an extremely significant role, because just as the family is the first “natural” social group that accepts a new-born child, the school is the first organized social institution encountered in the child’s life (Gudjons, 1994). Its action is particularly pronounced in the following areas:

a) School is an institution where the focus is on providing the young generation with the knowledge, skills and habits that are needed in a given social community so that the child can be included in normal social life. Certainly, this does not mean reducing the educational function of the school, it is always current; b) In the school environment, the child will encounter social discipline and social authority for the first time. Although the child has already learned the first “lessons” about discipline and authority in the shelter of his/her family, what he/she experiences at school is much different and more consistent; c) The class community is also a social group of a new kind for the child, because in it he/she comes into contact with peers who were randomly chosen and whose choice cannot be influenced by the child. At the same time, the child largely expands the range of his/her social experiences and acquires the social competences that are needed to function in such expanded social environment; d) The school should not only teach the child many things, but it should also unlearn many things. A child does not come to school as a “tabula rasa, or a blank slate”, but he/she is already an individual with certain opinions, understandings and habits acquired in the family circle and in the limited social contacts he/she was exposed to beforehand. Some of these understandings are inconsistent with the requirements of the “official” society, of which the school is a representative, and therefore the school should unlearn its students from them; d) In modern civilization, the school system is one of the main paths of social mobility for future citizens. Namely, the length of schooling and the type of school someone completed largely determine their later occupation and profession, and thus their social and economic status in later years. The Chinese know that school is a real social “elevator” and have used schools for this purpose ever since the time of Confucius. In European countries, the school system is an “elevator” that moves from the very bottom of society to its top, and it has been used for that for a very long time.

To famous French sociologist Durkheim,

“...it seemed necessary, even in elementary school, for the teacher to teach the child what are the groups in which he will live: a family, a corporation, a nation, a community of civilization that tends to encompass all of humanity; how they were formed and transformed; how they affect the individual and what role he plays in them” (Durkheim, 1981, p. 21).

In this way, the school would present the child with a broader social milieu, and it would also be a society in miniature.

The school represents a bridge between the “small” and the “big” world, that is, between the small family in which the child grows up in the period before starting school and the mostly mass-organized systems of social life - systems of education, employment, consumption, government, traffic and information. This thesis comes to the fore first in the scale, and then in the complexity of pedagogical institutions and measures. A child learned to get oriented in the parents’ home during the first six to seven years of his/her life. He/she not only knows where things are, but also understands what they are intended for, how they are handled, who they belong to - how to get what we need, as well as what we want to have. It follows that the number of subjects, as well as the possibilities, must not be reduced in the school if it is to be a “mediator” between the idyllic life in a small family house and large social institutions. It is appropriate for a school to have a large shared library, large collections of archaeological, biological and artistic data, chemical and physical models, costumes and theatre props, video libraries and audio-cassette collections, favourite objects of individuals or groups, as well as a school storeroom where different types of student work are kept - the students’ task is to manage and take care of all that. The school as a factor of socialization is a mediator between the private world with relatives, friends, neighbours, on the one hand, and the social public on the other; it is itself a public institution with an abstract purpose. The school is also an intermediary in relation to the severity and severity of demands and consequences - they are, to a certain extent, part of the game and should not be abrupt and strict. For example. cleaning the school and taking care of the hygiene of the rooms used should be in charge of professional staff, only to gradually become the concern and responsibility of the children. Therefore, the school must not be a place where children would be overprotected, but at the same time it must prevent reality with its weight from creeping into the consciousness of children through competitive struggle, forced adaptation, the imposition of attitudes and views of the world, with the consequences of open and dirty government. The school will achieve all of these and best protect students if the requirements are clearly ranked and follow one another. When security is achieved at one level, one can - and will want to - move to another.

The school is the centre of life in the community - a place where experience is gained, and at the same time a place where an individual realizes the necessity, advantage and cost of living in a community. Famous Russian pedagogue Makarenko, dissatisfied with the definition of the collective, which states that it is a group of persons who mutually act on each other, who jointly act on this or that stimulus, and which was the last word of the pedagogical-psychological literature at that time, clarifies the core of this social entity. In his words, the social entity represents, “firstly, the really existing form of life of humanity; secondly, that it is a necessary form (this is given in historical experience); thirdly, that it is not a community of polyps or frogs but of people, i.e., thinking beings whose actions are not governed by simple reactions” (Makarenko, 1957, p. 30). Man strives to improve life; he is realistically convinced that this improvement is possible only in social manifestations. Appreciating Makarenko’s contribution to pedagogical science, especially when it comes to the question of the collective and life in the community, we must also agree with his position that “we should most decisively fight against the informality of collective life” (Ibidem, p. 43) and strive to ensure that the educational-educational activity also meets this criterion. Based on the model of school as a community, the basic conditions of a peaceful, just, orderly and responsible life are taught, as well as all the difficulties that arise on that basis. The community is looking for order, self-discipline, agreement of opinions about the purpose, as well as the boundaries of the community. At the same time, it means feeling stronger, protected and rejoicing together - being happy and sharing it with others. At school, a young person can experience that the individual affects the whole; can learn by what means it is achieved; can learn what institutions offer, how rules are created and what ensures adherence to those rules, and what protection they provide (Hentig, 1997, p. 224). The results of efforts to transform classrooms and schools into learning communities seem promising, as it has been shown that collaborative activities of students in teaching contribute to the acquisition of new knowledge, the development of critical thinking skills, as well as the ability to argue (Palincsar, 1998; Terwel, 1999).

In the process of socialization, inclusion in the class group means friendship, in which Piaget sees the source of autonomous morality. These friendship bonds, as research shows (Adams, 1953; Zerby, 1961 and Kinsey, 1997, according to Katz and McClellan, 2005, Šaljić and Hebib, 2021), are more characteristic of mixed groups than of groups made only of peers. Thus, children are less exposed to isolation in groups with children of different ages than in groups of children of the same age. This tells us that groups with children of different age potentially represent an enriched community where there are more opportunities to give and receive help, regardless of whether the group members are younger or older. This is confirmed by the results of recent research, conducted by the authors Šaljić and Hebib, whose goal was to look at the teachers’ perspective to the prevention of antisocial behaviour of students in school practice.

“The obtained research results indicate that more work should be done in school practice on the implementation of various preventive activities that would provide different levels and types of support to students and in which all actors of school work would be involved” (Šaljić and Hebib, 2021 p. 58).

This also means that, in the desire to build a community in the students’ life, the school should work on building a community that would include students, parents, teachers, and the wider context of the educational institution and society.

The school is a place where one lives and learns for life - the New Democratic Society needs a new school with the imperative to teach students what is useful for life. To this end, the school should do much more than connect with everyday experience. Instead of conforming to existing perspectives and common models, it should be an introduction to new perspectives. Many years ago, Decroly said: “L’ecole pour la vie per la vie” (according to: Savić, 1997).

Since school is already the most important place for the majority of children during large part of the day, in any case the only tolerable (for many and the only possible) place where they stay, and school learning is the predominant way of life, the school can then be turned into a place where one lives and where it is possible to gain those experiences that are necessary for life.

Forms of encouraging the development of students’ social competence in the school environment

Competence implies a set of knowledge, abilities, skills and values, i.e., authority, competence, competence, qualification of someone, i.e., teachers for quality performance of their profession (Nikolić, 2016, p. 5). An essential characteristic of competence is development. Many social dispositions (positive and negative) are learned from experience. They are not learned by teaching, but on the basis of the models of important people from the environment. In addition, in order for social dispositions to be permanently formed/established, it is important that students have the opportunity to express them. Prosocial dispositions (cooperation, responsibility, empathy...) develop more intensively if they are manifested in real contexts, so it is necessary to provide a favourable and encouraging environment.

The development of primary social skills overlaps with the school experience. As we emphasized at the very beginning of the paper, the importance of the role of the teacher’s role and mastery of the profession, scientific disciplines and pedagogical methodology are necessary prerequisites for competence. However, all of the above are not enough, so, in addition to them, human qualities, knowledge, abilities and skills related to processes and interpersonal relations in teaching and education in general are also necessary. This would allow the teacher to, firstly, assess the state of interpersonal relations in the group of students he works with and secondly, to apply and develop accordingly adequate educational strategies to support students, so that they: a) develop productive intergroup relations and b) notice social competences and adopt them as their own models of behaviour. In this sense, we also provide an overview of the forms of encouraging the students’ social competence in the school environment.

Acquiring and expanding students’ social knowledge and understanding of social reality - Students will not be able to achieve their social involvement in the school collective without having adequate prior knowledge about the group and group dynamics, about techniques that will help this involvement. This knowledge implies that the individual has mastered the basic principles of democracy; group work; to find out what are the ways of realizing his social promotion, extraversion; and to learn what it means to understand other individuals and groups and what is the purpose of all that, as well as what is his personal interest. Depending on the student’s overall level of knowledge, the basis for the formation of one’s own perception of reality is created. In other words, a child who does not have this knowledge and understanding in interaction will hardly be able to be considerate of other people (Roeders, 2003, quoted by Knežević-Florić, 2006, p. 148). Social understanding implies the ability to predict other people’s reactions to common situations in peer interactions, as well as other people’s preferences, and understanding other people’s feelings. Developing the ability to communicate, to participate in a discussion, to negotiate, to alternately engage in a conversation, to cooperate, to initiate interaction, to articulate preferences and reasons for other people’s actions, to accept compromises and to empathize with others, is based on the types of understanding that play a certain role in effective social interaction. “Communication skills include listening, observing, analyzing, interpreting and behaving in communication. It is something that is learned throughout life and is part of intracultural communication (that is, communication with people from one’s own culture)” (Marković-Savić, Bakić-Mirić, 2022, p. 192). More socially competent students harmonize their behaviour with that of others by finding a “common language”, exchanging information and examining similarities and differences. This helps them to resolve conflicts and to communicate their intentions and preferences more successfully than their peers, as well as to express their feelings openly.

Drawing students’ attention to other people’s feelings and interests - In appropriate situations, the teacher should draw students’ attention to other people’s feelings and interests. This will result in a better development of students’ dispositions to predict the reactions and feelings of their peers in various events, thus deepening their knowledge and understanding of others. One way is to ask students questions - for example, in a discussion about plans for an upcoming activity, the teacher can ask one or several students what they think a particular student might like more or how that child might react to the plan devised so far. Through this type of question, teachers tell students that being considerate of others’ opinions, interests, and feelings is an important and valued trait. Another way is the teacher’s personal example - where he/she also serves as a model for predicting other people’s feelings and interests. In this sense, the teacher can discuss with the students what it is that the children in the second grade would like to know about what is happening in their class.

Encouraging alternative interpretations of other people’s behaviour - Certain negative forms of students’ behaviour can sometimes be a trigger for deepening social knowledge and understanding of others. Namely, encouraging alternative interpretations of other people’s behaviour will be effective in situations where children tend to label other children who are different from them or who are not nice to them. Furthermore, the teacher should show the labeller, at least with words, and even more convincingly with actions, that he/she knows and accepts the child who has been labelled. Here it is important for the teacher to encourage the student (labeller) to think about alternative interpretations of other people’s behaviour. It is also important that the teacher informs the students that he/she expects them to think about the reasons for the differences between children, that he/she accepts those differences, and that he/she expects the students to accept and respect the differences as well. A similar procedure can be used to help aggressive children develop alternative interpretations of the intentions behind a child’s behaviour. Aggressive children often immediately attribute aggressive intentions to others. The teacher has a role to help the student understand that not all actions, e.g., disruptions are always intentional and that there is a way to achieve an agreement. Although in some cases it will take students a long time to learn to think about the intentions of others, it will serve them well in future social interactions.

Helping students to participate actively in discussions - Acquiring knowledge and understanding of social situations required for active participation in discussions and similar social situations involves the teacher’s help. Of course, it is necessary for teachers to use the right moment as an occasion to point out to students that they should be considerate and listen to others when they speak and use the opportunity to share what they have. That moment can be a situation in which the student, due to the insufficiently developed ability to correctly interpret the social situation, makes comments that are not related to the topic being discussed. In the second case, the child-student interrupts the discussion with his/her comment because he/she wants to impose his own topic because of not being familiar with the current topic. In both cases, the teacher can help the student by talking to him/her privately and offering specific suggestions regarding topics that are important and interesting to other children. In order for the student to actively participate in discussions, it is also necessary to understand that a certain way of thinking, a special language of communication, appropriate behaviour as well as the readiness to rationally resolve various conflicts are also a (democratic) means for achieving practical goals (Avramović, 1999).

Helping students discover commonalities - Friendships are often formed when potential friends discover common interests, experiences and preferences. It is the teacher who can reinforce the interests of some students to other students by pointing out the interests or experiences that they have in common. Such common interests can represent the foundation of a solid friendship. These common experiences and interests can be from different areas of the student’s life and it is desirable that they should be positive. It is only important that they become a means through which a strong sense of community will be built.

Encouraging the development of the ability of constructive cooperation among students - The basic characteristic of a high-quality school is that, instead of emphasizing the students’ independent work, it increasingly emphasizes teamwork and cooperation. Every student can be successful if the starting point is his/her inclinations, general and special abilities (Nikolić, 2015, p. 85). Cooperative learning, teamwork and cooperation are among the most important activities that will be required in the future and will be crucial for success in the 21st century (Green&Gredler, 2002). According to the research on cooperative learning and its effects on teaching,

“There is a certain connection between the popularity of cooperative learning and the nature of the content, and that educators and teachers recognize the importance of cooperative learning to a greater extent when it comes to achieving social well-being, and to a lesser extent when it comes to achieving the personal well-being of children” (Kovačević, Blagdanić, Stojanović, 2021, p. 14).

Quality indicators, grouped around interpersonal relationships, are mostly related to cooperative learning in classes encouraging affirmation, communication and cooperation or mutual willingness to help. Cooperative or collaborative learning occurs when students work together, in pairs or small groups on a common problem, explore a common topic or build on mutual knowledge to create new ideas, new or unique combinations (Steele, Meredith and Temple, 1998). Educators (Zukorlić, 2012; Vilotijević and Mandić, 2016; Omerović, 2016) indicate the importance of interaction, communication and cooperation in the educational process. That is why the so-called interactive teaching (where the student acquires knowledge in constant cooperation with peers and the teacher) is increasingly gaining importance. In cooperation, through designed social tasks, a chance is created to experience alliance, solidarity and togetherness (Florić, 2005, p. 200). This, in fact, means that students acquire competences that they can later successfully apply at work, in the family and in other situations - and that, in other words, represents the goal of modern educational work and teaching. There are certain conditions that must be met in order to achieve cooperation: the first prerequisite for cooperation is the consent of each individual to cooperation; the second prerequisite is quality communication and the ability to harmonize with others. The highest level of cooperation is achieved if there is positive interdependence among group members.

Developing the ability to empathize - the ability to understand and understand others - Empathy is based on accepting differences and having a positive attitude towards them (Marković-Savić, Bakić-Mirić, 2022). Working on strengthening empathy in oneself requires a high degree of attention and serious work of soul and mind, and the most important thing, in this case, is to learn to listen and hear the student. If we want to be objective, we must say that a highly empathetic teacher really suffers significantly more than a low empathic one, but this is precisely the fundamental peculiarity of the teaching profession, its happiness and unhappiness. Being in a state of empathy means accepting the inner world of another accurately, but without feeling “as if ”. All this leads to achieving harmony in relations within a department as a group. The ability to achieve harmony will enable one group to, with other qualities being equal, be particularly successful and productive, while another group, whose members are no different in terms of talent and skills from the members of the first group, will achieve worse results (Goleman, 1998). Children are more prone to identification than adults, that is why in class they are often “infected” by the teacher’s emotions, which refers particularly to students of lower grades (Sergeev, 2004).

Strengthening altruism - In developing altruism in students, it is not possible to create an exact recipe, but it is important to know the principles, even if we know that parents, guardians, educators and teachers will adhere to them in their own respective ways. Knowledge of such principles and the development of skills to use them in practice are very important, but not sufficient. The satisfaction of these needs is a prerequisite for the development of caring for others and providing help, while their dissatisfaction potentially leads to hostility and aggression. And it is about the need for security, the need for a positive self-image or identity, the need for feeling successful and having some reasonable control over one’s own life, the need for positive connections with other people (individuals or communities), the need for a view of the world that enables understanding the world and one’s place in it.

Fostering solidarity - It is necessary to organize classes in such a manner that that students more often work in pairs or small groups. However, this implies that, on the one hand, teachers are trained for cooperative forms of work, and on the other hand, that students are trained in the social skills needed for successful cooperation. It is true that the teachers’ new roles, as well as forms of work that can influence the development of the students’ social competence can, with adequate training of future teachers, be applied in the course of daily educational activities at school. This is supported by the fact that if social skills improvement programs are carried out with all students as integral part of school activities, the problem of decontextualization of social behaviour is avoided (Gresham, 1986).

Conclusion

Considering the school as an educational context in the function of developing the students’ social competence, we started from the fact that the programs implemented for this purpose are part of the daily educational activities within the department, as well as the fact that the role of the teacher is crucial in this process. We did not perform the analysis of other types of work that go beyond the framework of regular educational activities at school (some are part of interactive pedagogy) and that have positive sides, e.g., workshops. Because this type of work with students does not have its basis in pedagogical theory but is based on practical recipes, it was not applied as part of the training of future teachers at the faculties.

The theoretical and methodological basis of this paper was social constructivism - a philosophy of education and learning, whose potential values of practical feasibility are not sufficiently recognized by our school practice. It is a very demanding concept, so the efforts towards its realization are justified, especially if it is taken into account that training a child for the role of an active and responsible member of the learning community is a long-term process. It should be emphasized that the ideas of social constructivism can be used to a larger or a smaller extent in existing conditions and applied to different ages of students. However, in order for social constructivism to be more widely accepted and for its good aspects to take root in teaching practice, it is necessary, first of all, that teachers are actively and sincerely engaged as the central factor in the management of education flows. It is clear that the problem of teachers’ readiness and openness to change is directly related to the issue of their professional education and training. When planning the education of future teachers, the starting point should be taking into account new pedagogical approaches of constructivist meta-theory and development-humanistic orientation, which are based on a mutual, interactive relationship between the individual and the community. The social aspect of the teaching process, pedagogical communication, modern media and the independent construction of knowledge are important spheres of education of future teachers that are indicated by constructivist didactics. It is necessary to provide future teachers, through communication in higher education, with models of social interaction and optimal levels of group functioning. The subject Interactive Pedagogy, as a segment of pedagogy, deals with the study of those phenomena and processes that are significant for upbringing and education, and, above all, the social aspect of the pedagogical process. Studying this subject at teacher education colleges is a basic (insufficient) prerequisite for creating more optimal conditions for purposeful interaction that would serve as a function of successful educational activities. In this respect, we underline that encouraging the development of students’ social competence in the school context is also an “obligatory” part of the daily educational work in it, as well as that the final outcomes of this process depend on the competence of the teacher under whose “educational baton” it takes place.

References

Avramović, Z. (1999). Textbook-culture-society. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet. [In Serbian].
Bakoč, A., & Kaljača, S. (2019). Quality of social competence of students with mild intellectual disability in school environment. Specijalna edukacija i rehabilitacija, 18(1), 9-41. [In Serbian]. [Crossref]
Cefai, C., Bartolo, P.A., Cavioni, V., & Downes, P. (2018). Strengthening Social and Emotional Education as a core curricular area across the EU: A review of the international evidence. In: NESET II report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [Crossref]
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educ Theory, 52(4), 409-428.
Delors, J. (1996). Education: Hidden treasure: UNESCO: Report of the international commission on education for the 21st century. Beograd: Ministarstvo prosvete Republike Srbije. [In Serbian].
Durkheim, E. (1981). Education and sociology. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike. [In Serbian].
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Green, S.K., & Gredler, M.E. (2002). A review and analysis of constructivism for school-based practice. School Psych Rev, 31(1), 53-70.
Gresham, F.M. (1986). Conceptual issues in the assessment of social competence in children. In: P.S. Strain, M.J. Guralnick, & H.M. Walker, (Ed.). Children's social behavior: Development, assessment and modification. (pp. 215-284). Orlando: Academic press.
Gudjons, H. (1994). Pedagogy. Zagreb: Educa. [In Croatian].
Hentig, H. (1997). A humane school, a school of thinking in a new way. Zagreb: Educa. [In Croatian].
Ivanović, S. (1997). Sociology and education. Jagodina: Pedagoški fakultet. [In Serbian].
Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Katz, L.G., & McClellan, D.E. (2005). Encouraging the development of children's social competence. Zagreb: Educa. [In Croatian].
Knežević-Florić, O. (2005). Pedagogy of development. Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy. [In Serbian].
Knežević-Florić, O. (2006). Assumptions of the theory of communicative action as a possible basis of pedagogical communication. In: Developing communication competences of teachers and students. (pp. 88-95). Jagodina & Kragujevac: Pedagoški fakultet & Filološkoumetnički fakultet. [In Serbian].
Kovačević, Z., Blagdanić, S., & Stojanović, A. (2021). Cooperative learning in the field of getting to know and understanding the world and in the teaching of nature and society. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, 34(1), 14-29. [In Serbian] . [Crossref]
Kovačević-Lepojević, M.M., Popović-Ćitić, B.B., & Bukvić-Branković, L.S. (2021). Examining the relationship between socioemotional learning and positive youth development: A systematic review. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, 34(3), 110-123. [In Serbian] . [Crossref]
Marković-Savić, O.S., & Bakić-Mirić, N.M. (2022). Social and individual assumptions for intercultural communication. Sociološki pregled, 56(1), 189-209. [Crossref]
Milutinović, J. (2011). Social constructivism in the field of education and learning. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 43(2), 177-194. [In Serbian] . [Crossref]
Mirkov, S. (2011). Constructivist paradigm and education for the knowledge society: Progressive discourse in teaching. In: D. Golubović, (Ed.). Technology, informatics and education - for a society of learning and knowledge. Čačak: Technical Faculty. [In Serbian].
Nikolić, I. (2015). Roles of nature and society teachers in a rapidly changing school. Beograd: Školska knjiga. [In Serbian].
Nikolić, I. (2016). Competency approach to teaching nature and society. Beograd: Školska knjiga. [In Serbian].
Omerović, M. (2016). Methodology of teaching work: Pedagogical decision-making power. Tuzla: OFF-SET. [In Serbian].
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol, 49, 345-375.
Roeders, P. (2003). Interactive teaching: Dynamics of effective learning and teaching. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet - Institut za pedagogiju i andragogiju. [In Serbian].
Šaljić, S., & Hebib, E. (2021). Prevention of antisocial behaviour of students from the teacher’s perspective. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavi, 34(2), 57-71. [In Serbian]. [Crossref]
Sergeev, I.S. (2004). The basics of pedagogical activities. Minsk. [In Russian].
Šimić-Šašić, S. (2011). Teacher-student interaction: Theories and measurement. Psychological topics, 20(2), 233-260. Univerzitet u Zadru. [In Croatian].
Šuvaković, U. (2020). A textbook is not a commodity or about the consequences of treating textbooks exclusively as a product that brings profit to the publisher. Godišnjak SAO, XVI, 146-158. [In Serbian]. Retrieved from http://www.sao.org.rs/untitled_27.htm.
Suzić, N. (2005). Pedagogy for the 21st century. Banja Luka: TT-centar. [In Serbian].
Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 195-199.
Trnavac, N. (2003). Three epochs and three theoretical conceptions of communication in school teaching. In: Communication and media. (pp. 51-61). Jagodina & Beograd: Pedagoški fakultet & Institut za pedagoška istraživanja. [In Serbian].
Vilotijević, M., & Mandić, D. (2016). Management of developmental changes in educational institutions. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet. [In Serbian].
Vygotsky, L.S. (1996). Problems of general psychology. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. [In Serbian].
Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), 751-755.
Wine, J.D., & Smye, M.D. (1981). Social competence. London: The Guilford Press.
Zukorlić, M. (2012). Improving communication in school. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet. [In Serbian].
Zukorlić, M.S. (2016). Pedagogical competencies functioning development of social competencies of students. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, 29(1), 92-104. [In Serbian]. [Crossref]
Reference
Avramović, Z. (1999) Textbook-culture-society. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet
Bakoč, A., Kaljača, S. (2019) Quality of social competence of students with mild intellectual disability in school environment. Specijalna edukacija i rehabilitacija, vol. 18, br. 1, str. 9-41
Cefai, C., Bartolo, P.A., Cavioni, V., Downes, P. (2018) Strengthening Social and Emotional Education as a core curricular area across the EU: A review of the international evidence. u: NESET II report, Publications Office of the European Union
Davis, B., Sumara, D. (2002) Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409-428
Delors, J. (1996) Education: Hidden treasure: UNESCO: Report of the international commission on education for the 21st century. Beograd: Ministarstvo prosvete Republike Srbije, [In Serbian]
Durkheim, E. (1981) Education and sociology. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike
Goleman, D. (1998) Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
Green, S.K., Gredler, M.E. (2002) A review and analysis of constructivism for school-based practice. School Psychology Review, vol. 31, br. 1, 53-70
Gresham, F.M. (1986) Conceptual issues in the assessment of social competence in children. u: Strain P.S., Guralnick M.J., Walker H.M. [ur.] Children's social behavior: Development, assessment and modification, Orlando: Academic press, 215-284
Gudjons, H. (1994) Pedagogy. Zagreb: Educa
Hentig, H. (1997) A humane school, a school of thinking in a new way. Zagreb: Educa
Ivanović, S. (1997) Sociology and education. Jagodina: Pedagoški fakultet
Jordan, A., Carlile, O., Stack, A. (2008) Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press
Katz, L.G., Mcclellan, D.E. (2005) Encouraging the development of children's social competence. Zagreb: Educa
Knežević-Florić, O. (2005) Pedagogy of development. Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy
Knežević-Florić, O. (2006) Assumptions of the theory of communicative action as a possible basis of pedagogical communication. u: Developing communication competences of teachers and students, Jagodina: Pedagoški fakultet, 88-95
Kovačević, Z.S., Blagdanić, S.R., Stojanović, A.M. (2021) Kooperativno učenje u oblasti upoznavanja i razumevanja sveta i u nastavi prirode i društva. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, vol. 34, br. 1, str. 14-29
Kovačević-Lepojević, M.M., Popović-Ćitić, B.B., Bukvić-Branković, L.S. (2021) Examining the relationship between socioemotional learning and positive youth development: A systematic review. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, vol. 34, br. 3, str. 110-123
Marković-Savić, O.S., Bakić-Mirić, N.M. (2022) Social and individual assumptions for intercultural communication. Sociološki pregled, vol. 56, br. 1, str. 189-209
Milutinović, J. (2011) Social constructivism in the field of education and learning. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 43 (2), 177-194
Mirkov, S. (2011) Constructivist paradigm and education for the knowledge society: Progressive discourse in teaching. u: Golubović D. [ur.] Technology, informatics and education - for a society of learning and knowledge, Čačak: Technical Faculty
Nikolić, I. (2016) Competency approach to teaching nature and society. Beograd: Školska knjiga
Nikolić, I. (2015) Roles of nature and society teachers in a rapidly changing school. Beograd: Školska knjiga
Omerović, M. (2016) Methodology of teaching work: Pedagogical decision-making power. Tuzla: OFF-SET
Palincsar, A.S. (1998) Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345-375
Roeders, P. (2003) Interactive teaching: Dynamics of effective learning and teaching. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet - Institut za pedagogiju i andragogiju
Sergeev, I.S. (2004) The basics of pedagogical activities. Minsk
Suzić, N. (2005) Pedagogy for the 21st century. Banja Luka: TT-centar
Šaljić, Z.S., Hebib, E.Dž. (2021) Prevencija antisocijalnog ponašanja učenika iz perspektive nastavnika. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, vol. 34, br. 2, str. 57-71
Šimić-Šašić, S. (2011) Teacher-student interaction: Theories and measurement. Psychological topics, 20(2), 233-260
Šuvaković, U. (2020) A textbook is not a commodity or about the consequences of treating textbooks exclusively as a product that brings profit to the publisher. Godišnjak SAO, vol. XVI, 146-158, http://www.sao.org.rs/untitled_27.htm
Terwel, J. (1999) Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 195-199
Trnavac, N. (2003) Three epochs and three theoretical conceptions of communication in school teaching. u: Communication and media, Jagodina: Pedagoški fakultet - Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, 51-61
Vilotijević, M., Mandić, D. (2016) Management of developmental changes in educational institutions. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet
Vygotsky, L.S. (1996) Problems of general psychology. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva
Windschitl, M. (1999) The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), 751-755
Wine, J.D., Smye, M.D. (1981) Social competence. London: The Guilford Press
Zukorlić, M. (2012) Improving communication in school. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet
Zukorlić, M.S. (2016) Pedagogical competencies functioning development of social competencies of students. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu, vol. 29, br. 1, str. 92-104
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski
vrsta rada: pregledni članak
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg56-39517
primljen: 05.08.2022.
revidiran: 12.09.2022.
prihvaćen: 28.09.2022.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 11.11.2022.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0

Povezani članci

Nema povezanih članaka