Драгана Ж. Гундоган, Институт за педагошка истраживања, Београд, Република Србија, имејл: stokanicdragana@gmail.com
Душица М. Малинић, Институт за педагошка истраживања, Београд, Република Србија
Младен Б. Радуловић, Институт за педагошка истраживања, Београд, Република Србија
Иновације у настави, XXXIII, 2020/2, стр. 29–41

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
doi: 10.5937/inovacije2002029G

Резиме: Полазећи од тога да не постоји консензус о начину на који школски фактори посредују утицај друштвеног положаја на постигнуће, желели смо да испитамо како наставне праксе утичу на везу између друштвеног положаја и постигнућа ученика. Прецизније, настојали смо да утврдимо да ли се међу ученицима чији учитељи користе различите начине рада (ближе трансмисивној или ближе ангажујућој настави) разликује интензитет повезаности између друштвеног положаја и постигнућа на TIMSS тесту. Да бисмо одговорили на ово питање, користили смо податке прикупљене у оквиру истраживања TIMSS 2015, спроведеног у Србији, а које је обухватило сто шездесет школа, сто деведесет два учитеља и четири хиљада тридесет шест ученика. Прикупљени подаци су анализирани помоћу факторске анализе варијансе и корелационе анализе. Резултати су показали да (1) постоји умерена позитивна веза између друштвеног положаја и постигнућа ученика, (2) да не постоји повезаност између начина рада у настави и постигнућа ученика, као и да (3) начин рада у настави посредује у вези између друштвеног положаја и постигнућа. Посредујућа улога начина рада огледа се у томе што је интензитет везе између положаја и постигнућа јачи уколико је настава више трансмисивна и мање ангажујућа. Добијени налази сугеришу да начини рада у учионици могу да ублаже друштвене неједнакости, те да је потребно да буду конципирани што више у складу са принципима ангажујуће наставе.
Кључне речи: друштвени положај, TIMSS, постигнуће, учитељ, настава.

Summary:  Starting from the fact that there is no consensus on the way in which school factors mediate the influence of social status on achievement, we wanted to examine how teaching practices affect the relationship between social status and student achievement. More precisely, we tried to determine whether the intensity of the correlation between social status and student achievement on the TIMSS test differs among students whose teachers use different ways of teaching (practices that are more in line with transmissive teaching or practices more in line with engaging teaching). To answer this question, we used the data collected within the TIMSS 2015 research conducted in Serbia, which included 160 schools, 192 primary school teachers, and 4036 students. The collected data were analyzed using factor analysis of variance and correlation analysis. The results showed that (1) there is a moderate positive correlation between social status and student achievement, (2) that there is no correlation between teaching practices and student achievement, and that (3) teaching methods mediate the relationship between social status and achievement. The mediating role of teaching approaches is reflected in the fact that the stronger intensity of the correlation between social status and achievement is, the teaching itself tends to be more transmissive and less engaging. The obtained findings suggest that teaching approaches in the classroom can alleviate social inequality, and that their concept has to be as much as possible in accordance with the principles of engaging teaching.
Кeywords: social status, TIMSS, achievement, primary school teacher, teaching.

Литература

• Abdi, A. (2014). The Effect of Inquiry-based Learning Method on Students’ Academic Achievement in Science Course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2 (1), 37‒41.
• Akınoğlu, O. & Tandogan, R. O. (2007). The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3 (1), 71‒81.
• Altinyelken, H. K. (2010). Pedagogical renewal in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Uganda. Comparative Education, 46 (2), 151–171.
• Alvaera, A. B., Bayan, M. E. S. & Martinez, D. P. (2009). Teaching Approach, Perceived Parental Involvement and Autonomy as Predictors of Achievement. The International Journal of Research and Review, 1, 57‒80.
• Baker, D. & LeTendre, G. (2000). Comparative sociology of classroom processes, school organization, and achievement. In: Hallinan, M. (Ed.). Handbook of the Sociology of Education (345‒364). New York: Springer.
• Berends, M. & Lucas, S. R. (2007). Achievement Gaps Among Racial-Ethnic Groups in the United States. In: Teese, R., Lamb, S. & Duru-Bellat, M. (Eds.). International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy (69‒116). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Bodroški-Spariosu, B. (2009). Uticaj porodičnog statusa na obrazovna postignuća učenika: različiti pristupi merenja. U: Komlenović, Đ., Malinić D. i Gašić-Pavišić, S. (ur.). Kvalitet i efikasnost nastave (112‒123). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Buchmann, C. & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and Stratification in developing countries: A Review of Theories and Research. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 27, 77‒102.
• Čaprić, G., Plut, D. & Vukmirović, J. (2008). Obrazovna postignuća dece iz različitih socioekonomskih slojeva na eksternim proverama znanja. U: Gašić-Pavišić, S., Joksimović, S. (ur.). Obrazovanje i siromaštvo u zemljama u tranziciji (51‒70). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Cassel, R. N. (2001). Third force psychology and teacher education in relation to contiguity and standards. Education, 122 (1), 205‒209.
• Cassen, R. & Kingdon, G. (2007). Tackling low educational achievement. York: Joseph Rowntree.
• Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Weinfeld, F. &York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• Đerić, I., Stančić, M. i Đević, R. (2017). Kvalitet nastave i postignuće učenika u matematici i prirodnim naukama. U: Marušić Jablanović, M., Gutvajn N. & Jakšić, I. (ur.) TIMSS 2015 u Srbiji (149‒181). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Dreeben, R. (2000). Structural effects in education. In: Hallinan, M. (Ed.). Handbook of the Sociology of Education (107‒135). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Dubljanin, S. (2010). Pitanje izbora nastavnih metoda. Pedagogija, 65 (4), 713–716.
• Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of education, 74 (1), 135‒153.
• Gamoran, A. & Long, D. A. (2007). Equality of educational opportunity a 40 year retrospective. In: International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy (23‒47). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V. & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of educational research, 66 (3), 361‒396.
• Hackathorn, J., Solomonb, E. D., Blankmeyerb, K. L., Tennialb, R. E. & Garczynskib, A. M. (2011). Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 11 (2), 40‒54.
• Hanushek, E. A. & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world. Economics of Education Review, 22, 481‒502.
• Ivić, I., Pešikan, A. i Antić, S. (2001). Aktivno učenje. Beograd: Institut za psihologiju.
• Jakšić, I., Marušić Jablanović, M. i Gutvajn, N. (2017). Činioci postignuća učenika iz Srbije u oblasti matematike. U: Marušić Jablanović, M., Gutvajn, N. i Jakšić I. (ur.). TIMSS 2015 u Srbiji (67‒94). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
• Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of education, 73‒85.
• Maksimović, A., Stančić, M. (2012). Nastavne metode iz perspektive nastavnika. Metodički obzori, 7 (1), 69–82.
• McCleod, J. & Yates, L. (2006). Making modern lives: subjectivity, schooling and social change. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press.
• O’Sullivan, M. (2004). The re-conceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: A Namibian case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24 (6), 585–602.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
• Paolini, A. (2015). Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness and Student Learning Outcomes. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 15 (1), 20‒33.
• Pavlović-Babić, D. (2008). Odnos obrazovnih postignuća i socioekonomskog okruženja učenika: istraživački nalazi i pedagoške implikacije. U: Gašić-Pavišić, S., Joksimović, S. (ur.). Obrazovanje i siromaštvo u zemljama u tranziciji (83‒106). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Perry, L. & Mc Conney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the School Matter? An Examination of Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement Using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112 (4),1137–1162.
• Power, S., Whitty, G., Edwards, T. & Wigfall, V. (1998). Schools, families and academically able students contrasting modes of involvement in secondary education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19 (2), 157–77.
• Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching in Higher Education. In: Dart, B. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (250‒268). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Putica, K., Trivić, D. (2019). Efekti primene metode učenja putem rešavanja problema u nastavi prirodnih nauka. Inovacije u nastavi, 32 (4), 21‒31.
• Radulović, M., Malinić, D. i Gundogan, D. (2017). Povezanost kulturnog kapitala i opremljenosti škole sa postignućem učenika. U: Marušić Jablanović, M., Gutvajn, N. i Jakšić, I. (ur.). TIMSS 2015 u Srbiji (129‒147). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
• Reardon, S. (2014). The widening income achievement gap. In: Arum, R., Beattie, I. & Ford, K. (Eds.). The structure of schooling: readings in the sociology of education (279‒285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Reay, D. (2010). Socioly, social class and education. In: Apple, M. W., Ball, S. J. & Gandin, L. A. (Eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education (396‒404). New York; London: Routledge.
• Riordan, C. (1998). Gender Gap Trends in Public Secondary Schools:1972 to 1992. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco, California, August 21, 1998.
• Rumberger, R. W. & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107, 1999–2045.
• Sesen, B. A. & Tarhan, L. (2010). Promoting active learning in high school chemistry: Learning achievement and attitude. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 2625‒2630.
• Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 417–453.
• Stepanović, I. (2007). Mišljenje u adolescenciji: Razvojni tok i uloga porodice. Beograd: Institut za psihologiju.
• Strategija razvoja obrazovanja u Srbiji do 2020. godine (2012). Službeni glasnik RS, br. 107.
• Švajncer, M. (2004). Some ethical questions about conteporary school. U: Stevanović, M. (ur.). Škola bez slabih učenika (193‒201). Pula: Filozofski fakultet.
• Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14 (1), 1‒32. Retrieved from: http://cie.asu.edu/
• Yoder, J. D. & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of psychology, 32 (2), 91‒95.
• Yore, L. D. (2001). What is Meant by Constructivist Science Teaching and Will the Science Education Community Stay the Course for Meaningful Reform? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5 (4). Retrieved from https://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html
• White, K. (1982). The Relation between Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91 (3), 461‒481.

Copyright © 2020 by the authors, licensee Teacher Education Faculty University of Belgrade, SERBIA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited