Structuring lessons or structuring knowledge – what does it tell us about the teaching practice?

Abstract

Practically all didactic textbooks and manuals more or less explicitly emphasize the importance of structuring in teaching. Authors often stress that teachers should begin the lesson with an overview, gradually present the material, and repeat the most important parts of the lesson at the end of the lecture (Trnavac & Đorđević, 2010; Vilotijević, 1999). These procedures mainly pertain to the organization of teaching activities, and we refer to them as structuring lessons. In literature, there are also recommendations regarding students linking the current topic with previously processed content, students connecting the content with topics addressed in other teaching subjects, and so forth (Pešikan, 2001; Šefer, 1991). This form of structuring could be labeled as structuring knowledge. The aim of this study was to investigate whether both forms of structuring were equally represented in the teaching practice in Serbia or whether one of them was predominant (and if so, which one). The significance of the results lies in their usefulness in discovering the predominant teacher orientation. Therefore, this paper implicitly addresses the more general question of whether the education practice in Serbia focuses on the activities of teachers (structuring lessons), student learning (structuring knowledge), or both two forms of structuring equally.