Scientific and Theoretical Foundations of Teaching Systems
Abstract
In the available didactic literature, there has not been an attempt to identify the theoretical foundations of teaching systems. The aim of this paper is to identify and compare the scientific and theoretical foundations of traditional and representative innovative teaching systems.
Through meta-theoretical analysis and comparison, it was established that the theoretical foundations of the system of lecturer-centered and lecturer-expository teaching represent the conservative didactic paradigm, characterized by stimulus-response (S-R) learning theories, epistemological theories of education, associative psychology, classical-didactic starting points, and the instructions of Herbert, Comenius, and their followers. The primary outcomes of this approach predominantly consist of memorized, reproductive verbal knowledge. Two key methodological conceptions of the conservative didactic paradigm were identified: dogmatic and explanatory-reproductive.
The basis of innovative teaching (problem-based, individualized, project-based, contextual, developmental, receptive, responsible, interactive, computerized, inclusive, etc.) is rooted in the rationalist, constructivist, and phenomenological didactic paradigms. They draw upon contemporary didactic theories, S-O-R theories of learning and creativity, theories of intrinsic motivation, non-violent communication and inclusion, the theory of developing teaching, the theory of confluent education, and emancipatory pedagogical and humanistic-personalistic theories. The outcomes of these innovative approaches include transferable knowledge, productive skills, developed thinking and creative abilities, practical life skills, and competences for lifelong learning.
The key methodological concepts of the rationalist, constructivist, and phenomenological didactic paradigms are developmental and person-oriented teaching. The more effective the system of innovative teaching is, the more complex its paradigmatic-didactic and complementary multidisciplinary scientific foundations are. This should be respected in the systematic improvement of teaching and overall educational work, in scientific and research activities, the professional education of future teachers, and the permanent professional development of teachers.
The key didactic paradigms and related interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary scientific-theoretical foundations of innovative teaching systems were created by identifying and synthesizing exact, mostly experimental didactic-methodical and pedagogical-psychological scientific research. Such scientific empirical research is based on reliable scientific-theoretical starting points and contributes to the further expansion and deepening of didactic-paradigmatic and related interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary theoretical generalizations, which should be based on reform changes in education, the school system, pedagogical institutions, and the second and third cycles of study programs at teachers’ faculties. This study highlights the pedagogical implications of its findings, particularly in the continuous improvement of teaching quality, enhancement of research concepts, dissemination of teaching systems, and the modernization of curricula at teachers’ faculties.
References
Виготски, Л. (1996). Дечија психологија, IV. Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства.
Вилотијевић, М. (1999). Дидактика 2 – Дидактичке теорије и теорије учења. Београд: Научна књига – Учитељски факултет.
Вилотијевић, М. и Вилотијевић, Н. (2016). Модели развијајуће наставе I. Београд: Учитељски факултет.
Давидов, В. В. (1995). О схватањима развијајуће наставе. У: С. Крњајић (прир.), Сазнање и настава (стр. 9–36). Београд: Институт за педагошка истраживања.
Илић, M. (2011). Квалитет универзитетске наставе и болоњски процес. У: Д. Бранковић (ур.), Квалитет наставног и научног рада и болоњски процес (стр. 9–45). Бања Лука: Филозофски факултет.
Илић, М. (2015). Дидактика и слобода учесника наставног процеса. У: М. Бабић (ур.), Наука и слобода (стр. 645–667). Источно Сарајево: Филозофски факултет. https://doi.org/10.7251/ZRNSFFP0915645I
Илић, М. (2017). Дидактичко-методички токови, истраживачке оријентације и системи наставе у теорији и стварности. У: Д. Мастиловић (ур.), Наука и стварност (стр. 57–79). Источно Сарајево: Филозофски факултет.
Јерковић, Љ. (2023). Индивидуално планирана настава. Бања Лука: Филозофски факултет.
Јоргић, Д. (2011). Интерактивно стручно усавршавање наставника. Лакташи: Графомарк.
Костовић, С., Ољача, М. и Ђерманов, Ј. (2008). Парадигме у педагогији и учење учења. У: Д. Бранковић (прир.), Наука, култура и идеологија (стр. 263–277). Бања Лука: Филозофски факултет.
Мијановић, Н. (2023). Конструктивизам као савремена наставна парадигма. Иновације у настави, XXXVI (1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije2301021M
Рудакова, И. А. (2005). Дидактика – среднее профессиональное образование. Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс.
Хуторской, А. В. (2004). Современная дидактика: Учебник для вузов. Стандарт третьего поколения. СПБ: Питер.
Beccuti, F., & Robutti, O. (2022). Teaching mathematics in today’s society: Didactic paradigms, narratives and citizenship. For the Learning of Mathematics, 42(2), 29–34.
Dagar, V., & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(4), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000200
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting Mathematics Education. China Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fulgosi, A. (1987). Psihologija ličnosti. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Glynn, S. M., & Winter, L. K. (2004). Contextual teaching and learning of science in elementary schools. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 16(2), 51–63.
Gojkov, G. (2011). Didactic limitations of constructivistic learning model in teaching. Metodički obzori, 13 (6), 19–39.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluence. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 191–215). London – New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Ilić, M. (1998). Nastava različitih nivoa složenosti. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet.
Ilić, M. (2002). Responsibilna nastava. Banja Luka: Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci.
Ilić, M. (2012). Inkluzivna nastava. Istočno Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet.
Ilić, M. (2020). Didaktika. Banja Luka: Filozofski fakultet.
Matijević, M. i Topolovčan, T. (2017). Konstruktivistička nastava. Zagreb: Školska knjiga i Sveučilište u Zagrebu.
Ničković, R. (1970). Učenje putem rešavanja problema u nastavi. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Parnell, D. (2001). Contextual Teaching Works! Helping Students Reach Higher Levels of Achievement. Waco, TX: CCI Publishing.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024007005
Rustenpašić, M. S. (2020). Projektna nastava bazirana na ishode učenja. Sarajevo: Pedagoški fakultet.
Schell, J. W., & Schell, B. A. B. (2008). Teaching for expert practice. In: B. A. Schell & J. W. Schell (Eds.), Clinical Reasoning in Occupational Therapy (pp. 89–96). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
Slatina, M. (2005). Od individue do ličnosti – uvođenje u teoriju konfluentnog obrazovanja. Zenica: „Dom štampe”.
Stevanović, M. (1998). Metode recepcije u nastavi. Tuzla: R&S.
Stevanović, M. (2003). Interaktivna stvaralačka nastava. Rijeka: Andromeda d.o.o.
Stojaković, P. (2005). Psihologija za nastavnike. Banja Luka: Media centar – PRELOM.
Tehart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics?. Curriculum Studies, 35 (1), 25–44.
Topolovčan, T., Rajić, V. i Matijević, M. (2017). Multimedijska didaktika. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu – Učiteljski studij.
The details about the publication policy, including copyright and licensing, are available at: