Komparativni prikaz sekvencijalne analize i drugih modela za evaluaciju školskog časa

Abstract

U ovom radu imamo za cilj da uporedimo i prikažemo prednosti postupka sekvencijalne analize (Ivić, Pešikan, Antić 2001) u odnosu na druge iz literature poznate instrumente za psihološko-didaktičku analizu časa. U instrumente sa kojima poredimo sekvencijalnu analizu uvrstili smo sledeće: Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (Flanders 1970), Mesner-Fuglisterova skala (Mesner, Fuglister 1973), ETH Wiss - 92 instrument (Educational Development and Technology, 2007) i CLASS sistem (Pianta, La Paro, Hamre 2007). Rad se sastoji iz dva dela. U prvom delu rada predstavljamo odabrane instrumente, dok u drugom delu ove instrumente poredimo na osnovu četiri kriterijuma - odnos između instrumenta kao istraživačke tehnike i nastave kao predmeta analize, priroda jedinice za analizu školskog časa, sadržaj jedinice za analizu školskog časa, postupak globalne procene časa.

The goal of this paper is to highlight the advantages of the sequential analysis (Ivić, Pešikan, Antić 2001) compared to other existing instruments for psychological-didactical analysis of school classes-Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (Flanders 1970), Füglister-Messner scale (Füglister, Messner 1973), ETH Wiss-92 instrument (Educational Development and Technology 2007) and CLASS system (Pianta, La Paro, Hamre 2007). The paper consists of two parts. In the first part the aforementioned methods are presented, while in the second these methods are compared on the basis of four criteria-the relationship between the instrument as a research technique and teaching as the object of the analysis; the nature of the smallest element of a school class analysis; the content of the smallest element of a school class; the procedure of the global evaluation of a class. The conducted analyses allow us to put the sequential analysis on one side and the other evaluative instruments on the other, as two different categories of evaluative instruments. The sequential analysis is in both technical and practical sense conceived in such a way that preserves the psychological essence of teaching as a process based on interaction. On the other side, the other instruments represent analytical procedures that reduce psychological and didactic value of the evaluation of a class. Therefore these instruments and their results do not have sufficient theoretical and practical value when it comes to psychological-didactical evaluation of school classes.