REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ISSN 2350-4803 (SPLET/ONLINE) ISSN 1855-4431 (TISK/PRINT) Revija za elementarno izobraževanje Odgovorni urednik: Matjaž Duh (Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija) Urednica za podrocje družboslovja: Silva Bratož (Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija) Urednica za podrocje humanistike: Urednik za podrocje naravoslovja in informatike: Sonja Starc (Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija) Tomaž Bratina (Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija) Tehnicna urednika: Jerneja Herzog (Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija Jan Perša (Univerza v Mariboru, Univerzitetna založba) MEDNARODNI UREDNIŠKI ODBOR dr. Renate Seebauer, (Pädagogische Hochschule Wien, Avstrija), dr. Ligita Stramkale, (Latvijas Universitate, Riga, Latvia), dr. Herbert Zoglowek, (UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsř, Norveška), dr. Maria Aleksandrovich, (Akademia Pomorska w Slupsku, Poljska), dr. Nevenka Tatkovic, (Fakultet za odgojne i obrazovne znanosti, Sveucilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli, Hrvaška), dr. Grozdanka Gojkov, (Uciteljski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Srbija), dr. Jelena Prtljaga, (Visoka škola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitaca »Mihailo Palov« Vršac, Srbija), ddr. Jürgen Kühnis, (Pädagogische Hochschule Schwyz, Švica), dr. Marie Fulková, (Pedagogická fakulta, Univerzite Karlove, Praha, Ceška), dr. Vera Janíková, (Pedagogická fakulta, Masarykova univerzita, Brno, Ceška), dr. Oliver Holz, Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Lueven, Belgija, (dr. Ljubica Marjanovic Umek, (Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija), dr. Janez Vogrinc, (Pedagoška fakulteta Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija), dr. Milena Valencic Zuljan, (Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija), dr. Mateja Pšunder, (Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru, Slovenija), dddr. Joca Zurc (Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru, Slovenija), dr. Majda Schmidt Krajnc, (Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerze v Mariboru, Slovenija), dr. Alenka Lipovec, (Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerze v Mariboru, Slovenija), dr. Sonja Rutar (Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija), dr. Tina Štemberger, (Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Slovenija) NASLOV UREDNIŠTVA Revija za elementarno izobraževanje, Uredništvo revije Revija za elementarno izobraževanje Koroška cesta 160, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-pošta: rei.pef@um.si, http://rei.um.si ZALOŽNIK Univerzitetna založba Univerze v Mariboru Slomškov trg 15, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija e-pošta: zalozba@um.si, http://press.um.si/, http://journals.um.si/ Clanki se referirajo v: SCOPUS (Elsevier Bibliografhic Databases), DOAJ, ERIH PLUS, EBSCO (EBSCOhostweb), Ulrich`s Periodicals Directory, IBZ (Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur), Proquest, dLib.si, DKUM, COBISS (Co-operative Online Bibliographic System and Services). Clanki v reviji so recenzirani. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje je revija, ki jo izdaja Univerzitetna založba Univerze v Mariboru v soizdajateljstvu Pedagoške fakultete Univerze v Mariboru, Pedagoške fakultete Univerze na Primorskem in Pedagoške fakultete Karlove Univerze v Pragi. V njej so objavljeni prispevki s podrocja vzgoje in izobraževanja zlasti na predšolski in osnovnošolski stopnji. Avtorji prispevkov z znanstvenega vidika pišejo o problemih, ki zadevajo vzgojo in izobraževanje. Namen revije je spodbujati objavo znanstvenoraziskovalnih clankov. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje izhaja štirikrat letno. V njej so objavljeni prispevki v slovenskem ali angleškem jeziku oz. nemškem jeziku. Prispevke pošljite na naslov uredništva ali po e-pošti na naslov: rei.pef@um.si Journal of Elementary Education Editor-in-Chief: Matjaž Duh (University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Slovenia) Editor for Social Sciences: Silva Bratož (Universitiy of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Slovenia) Editor for Humanities: Editor for Nature and Information Sciences: Sonja Starc (Universitiy of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Slovenia) Tomaž Bratina (University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Slovenia) Technical Editors: Jerneja Herzog (University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Slovenia) Jan Perša (University of Maribor) INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD Renate Seebauer, PhD (University College of Teacher Education, Vienna, Austria), Ligita Stramkale, PhD (University of Latvia, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Art, Riga, Latvia), Herbert Zoglowek, PhD (University of Trřmso, Norwegian Arctic University, Alta, Norway), Maria Aleksandrovich, PhD (Pomeranian University in Slupsk, Faculty of Social Science, Slupsk, Poland ), Nevenka Tatkovic, PhD (Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Faculty of Educational Sciences. Pula, Croatia), Grozdanka Gojkov, PhD (University of Belgrade, Teacher Education Faculty, Belgrade, Serbia), Jelena Prtljaga, PhD (Preschool Teacher Training College »Mihailo Palov«, Vršac, Serbia), Jürgen Kühnis, Phd, (The Schwyz University of Teacher Education, Goldau, Switzerland), Marie Fulková, PhD (Charles University, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic), Vera Janíková, PhD (Masaryk University, Faculty of Education, Brno, Czech Republic), Oliver Holz, PhD (Faculty of Economics and Busines, KU Leuven, Belgium, Ljubica Marjanovic Umek, PhD (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia) Janez Vogrinc, PhD (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Ljubljana, Slovenia), Milena Valencic Zuljan, PhD (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Ljubljana, Slovenia), Mateja Pšunder, PhD (University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Maribor, Slovenia), Majda Schmidt Krajnc, PhD (University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Maribor, Slovenia), Joca Zurc, PhD (University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Maribor, Slovenia), Alenka Lipovec, PhD (University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Maribor, Slovenia), Sonja Rutar, PhD (Univesrity of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Koper, Slovenia) Tina Štemberger, PhD (Univesrity of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Koper, Slovenia) EDITORIAL OFFICE ADDRESS Journal of Elementary Education, Editorial Board of Journal of Elementary Education Koroška cesta 160, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenija , e-pošta: rei.pef@um.si, http://rei.um.si PUBLISHED BY University of Maribor Press Slomškov trg 15, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: zalozba@um.si, http://press.um.si/, http://journals.um.si/ Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: SCOPUS (Elsevier Bibliografhic Databases), DOAJ, ERIH PLUS, EBSCO (EBSCOhostweb), Ulrich`s Periodicals Directory, IBZ (Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur), Proquest, dLib.si, DKUM, COBISS (Co-operative Online Bibliographic System and Services). Journal of Elementary Education is a peer-reviewed journal, open access journal that publishes scientific articles primarly but not limited to the area of elementary school education. JEE is published four times yearly and accepts articles in Slovene, English and German. JEE is published by the University Press University of Maribor with cooperate Faculty of Education University of Maribor, Faculty of Education University of Primorska and Charles University, Faculty of Education, Prague. Articles may be sent electronically to: rei.pef@um.si Revija za elementarno izobraževanje Journal of Elementary Education Volume 14 Number 3 September 2021 Kazalo / Table of Contents Prispevki / Articles Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes Uporaba strategij diferenciacije za nadarjene ucence pri zacetnem poucevanju naravoslovja Alena Letina 281 Šolski vrtovi v Pomurju School Garden in the Pomurje Region Jana Ambrožic Dolinšek, Dane Katalinic & Patricija Utroša 301 The Relation between Intercultural Sensitivity and World Music Preference among Grammar School and Vocational School Students Odnos med kulturno obcutljivostjo in svetovnimi glasbenimi preferencami pri gimnazijcih in dijakih poklicnih šol Daniela Petrušic & Tonka Šešelj 317 Pomen uzavešcanja narecnega besedja pri ucecih se The importance of dialect awareness among learners Alenka Valh Lopert 333 Predisposition towards Sustainable Behaviour among Students in the Pre-school Education Study Programme Predispozicije za trajnostno vedenje študentov dodiplomskega študija predšolske vzgoje Aleksandra Šindic, Kiril Barbarev, Marko Gavriloski & Jurka Lepicnik Vodopivec 353 Mnenje vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev o kompetentnosti za vodenje gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok, upoštevajoc lastno gibalno dejavnost The opinion of preschool teachers on their self-perceived competence for leading the physical activity process in preschool children in relation to their own leisure-time physical activity Matej Plevnik 369 USING DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGIES FOR GIFTED PUPILS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES Potrjeno/Accepted 14. 12. 2020 Objavljeno/Published 30. 9. 2021 ALENA LETINA University of Zagreb, Faculty of Teacher Education, Zagreb, Croatia CORRESPONDING AUTHOR/KORESPONDENCNI AVTOR alena.letina@ufzg.hr Keywords: gifted pupils, differentiation, primary school science class, development of pupils’ competences Kljucne besede: nadarjeni ucenci, diferenciacija, zacetno poucevanje naravoslovja, razvoj študentskih kompetenc UDK/UDC 376-056.45:5 Abstract/Izvlecek The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which gifted pupils receive differentiated instruction in primary school science classes, which of the differentiated instruction strategies are used by teachers and how often. The survey sample included 134 primary school teachers. The results show that teachers frequently use questioning and thinking activities but make only minor modifications in the regular curriculum to meet the needs of gifted pupils. Gifted pupils rarely engage in activities such as providing challenges and choices, differentiated reading and writing assignments, individually set work, activities involving curriculum modification, and enrichment centres. Uporaba strategij diferenciacije za nadarjene ucence pri zacetnem poucevanju naravoslovja Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri so nadarjeni ucenci vkljuceni v procese diferenciacije v zacetnem poucevanju naravoslovja, katere strategije diferenciranega poucevanja ucitelji izvajajo in kako pogosto. V raziskavo je bil vkljucen vzorec 134 uciteljev v osnovni šoli. Rezultati raziskave kažejo, da ucitelji najpogosteje uporabljajo zasliševalne postopke za razvijanje študentskega mišljenja, vendar v redni ucni nacrt vnesejo le manjše spremembe, da bi zadovoljili potrebe znanstveno nadarjenih študentov. Nadarjeni ucenci so redko vkljuceni v dejavnosti, kot so zagotavljanje izzivov in izbire, uporaba razlicnih bralnih in pisnih nalog, individualno delo, dejavnosti v katerih so vkljucene spremembe ucnega nacrta in dejavnosti v obogatitvenih centrov. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.281-300.2021 Besedilo / Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobcitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Introduction Differentiated instruction is a process in which a teacher, having analysed the specific needs of each pupil within a heterogeneous classroom, adapts the curriculum and activities to their individual needs (Tomlinson, 2001). This process involves allowing pupils to learn in several different ways in accordance with their abilities (Munro, 2012). Such an approach to instruction contrasts with traditional teaching methods, in which all activities are adapted to the “average and medium pupil”, while ignoring pupils’ individual characteristics (Table 1). Table 1. Comparing traditional and differentiated classrooms Traditional classroom Differentiated classroom Teaching and learning strategies Dominance of whole-class instruction. Multiple teaching and learning strategies are used. Flexible grouping and regrouping of pupils according to instructional objectives and in response to pupils’ needs (Munro, 2012). Learning focus Learning focus is on mastery of facts and skills out-of-context. Emphasis on understanding key concepts and application of essential skills in the real-life context (Huebner, 2010). Learning assignments Emphasis on using single option assignments. Emphasis on using multi option assignments. The contrast is in the depth and complexity of tasks (Munro, 2012). Pupils’ interests Interests are less frequently assessed. Instruction is driven by the curriculum content coverage. Incorporate pupils’ interests to increase their motivation for learning and to maximize individual potential (Tomlinson, 2001). Assessment and evaluation Assessment usually takes place at the end of learning to see the results. Implement multifaceted, continual assessment to guide instructional decisions and focus pupils’ learning goals. Provide a variety of opportunities for the pupil to demonstrate knowledge and skills (Hall, Strangman and Mayer, 2007). Questions Dominance of convergent questions and development of convergent thinking. Dominance of open-ended questions and encouragement of divergent thinking (Munro, 2012). Learning centres Learning centres are not typically used. Forming learning centres and multiple activities to learn similar material in a variety of ways (Huebner, 2010). Gifted pupils Pupils who have already mastered the learning content wait until the rest of the class catches up. Pupils who have already mastered the learning content work on “challenge assignments” in order to deepen their understanding (Kim, 2016). Conversely, differentiated instruction attempts to bring the learning and teaching process closer to pupils with different learning abilities who belong to a single class. The main purpose of this process is to enhance the productivity of each pupil and foster their development and individual success (Hall, Strangman, and Mayer, 2007). Previous research studies have shown that differentiated instruction is usually achieved by adapting both the teaching content and the learning process, as well as the final product, i.e., the manner in which pupils demonstrate the competences they have acquired during the learning process (Huebner, 2010; Tomlinson and Strickland, 2005; Munro, 2012). In the teaching process, differentiated instruction begins with identifying individual differences among pupils. Differentiated instruction also includes focusing on basic knowledge and skills related to the currently taught content; identifying pupils’ various learning styles, differences in their prior knowledge, levels of interest, degree of activity, and participation in the teaching process; flexible grouping of pupils according to their interests, topic at hand and possibilities; and continuous monitoring of pupils’ progress, as well as adjusting the teaching content, learning and teaching process and learning product to the needs of pupils. It also involves recognizing pupils who are capable of going above and beyond the intended teaching content by means of enrichment activities, i.e., identifying gifted pupils who need an appropriate level of challenge and support to develop their full potential (Wallace, Bernardelli, and Molyneux, 2012). There is no single definition that can precisely describe giftedness. Different researchers have developed specific definitions of giftedness that include thinking, learning styles and function of the brain, giftedness as a genetic trait, giftedness as the result of creativity, and intrapersonal attributes such as identity development and self-awareness. These definitions try to move away from the traditional definition of giftedness as high intelligence defined by IQ tests, an approach that has been criticized as static. Other definitions are built on a multidimensional understanding of giftedness. Renzulli's (2012) three-ring conception of giftedness postulates three clusters of characteristics in gifted children: above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment. Gagne (2004) distinguishes between gifts (aptitude) and talent (performance), encompassing a wide range of possible areas in which children can demonstrate capability and emphasizing the transition between gifts and talent and environmental influences. Mönks (1992) describes giftedness as a combination of inherent potential and environmental factors. Schmitt and Goebel explain that the term gifted and talented students, means “those students who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (Schmitt and Goebel, 2015, p. 429). These students are characterized by quicker and more efficient learning and thinking at a higher level than other kids of their age. Morelock (1996) defines giftedness as a form of development and talent – a “multi-level potential for domain-specific creative productivity which can be fostered through appropriate identification and environmental support”. Children with exceptional achievement or potential in one or more areas are considered gifted. Gifted pupils “achieve exceptionally high levels of attainment in all or some aspects of the curriculum demands in school science or undertake some science-related tasks at a level of demand well above that required at their current curricular stage” (Taber, 2010, p. 9). They show strong curiosity about things and phenomena around them, and often ask many questions. They are able to handle abstract concepts, enjoy challenging problems and have creative and investigative ideas. They demonstrate high interest in investigating scientific phenomena and show ability to make connections between scientific concepts and observed phenomena. The concepts of gifted and talented are commonly used together, but some definitions show that there is a subtle difference between giftedness and talent, as giftedness talks about potential abilities whereas talent talks about present abilities that can be demonstrated or performed (Da Costa and Lubart, 2016). The main methods that foster the development of gifted pupils in general include differentiation, extra-curricular amplification - i.e., curriculum enrichment, acceleration, and grouping of gifted pupils. Each of these methods specifically contributes to meeting the needs of gifted pupils and developing their abilities. Extracurricular amplification and curriculum enrichment refer to an intervention in both the learning content and the learning process which aims to enhance the competences of gifted pupils within regular classes and allow maximum development of their abilities (Southem and Jones, 2004). Acceleration is most commonly described as an educational intervention model in which pupils progress rapidly through educational programmes at a younger age than usual. It can be partial, i.e., used for specific subjects only, or complete, which involves an accelerated progression through the educational system based on pupils’ specific abilities (Southem and Jones, 2004). The advantages of this approach are that it improves gifted pupils’ personal motivation, academic performance and mental habits, and helps meet their emotional needs and reduce their sense of isolation, while the disadvantages include social and emotional difficulties and possible occurrence of gaps in pupils’ knowledge and skills (Petrovich, 2005; Rogers, 2002). Despite the observed disadvantages, acceleration is considered the most efficient strategy for enhancing the achievements of gifted pupils and improving their motivation (Colangelo, Assouline and Gross, 2004). Therefore, it is recommended that it be combined with other methods that foster the development of gifted pupils (Davis and Rimm, 2004). Grouping of pupils according to their specific abilities contributes to academic performance, development of critical thinking and creativity in gifted pupils (Rogers and Span, 1993). One of the advantages of grouping pupils by ability is that it allows teachers to focus on meeting the needs of gifted pupils and on tailoring activities to suit their specific abilities. A possible disadvantage of this method is the emergence of elitism and negative attitudes among other pupils towards such grouping, as well as a loss of self-esteem among pupils who have not been identified as gifted. Based on all the above, it can be concluded that none of the existing strategies aimed at meeting the needs of gifted pupils is ideal, which is why it is recommended to combine several different methods when working with gifted pupils. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that curriculum enrichment and differentiation are generally considered the most acceptable strategies for fostering the development of gifted pupils, given that both methods can have a positive impact on the development of competences among both gifted pupils and all other pupils in an education system. Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) emphasize that gifted pupils require alternative forms of work that allow them to develop their knowledge and skills and perform at a higher, more challenging level. Especially convenient for this purpose are tasks that can be solved in several different ways (Tomlinson and Imbeau, 2010), thus supporting different learning styles. High-quality differentiated instruction will allow pupils to showcase their comprehension of the acquired knowledge and abilities that they have developed in different ways during the teaching process. In terms of the assessment process, this means that the mark a pupil receives should reflect what the pupil knows, understands and is able to do, instead of what he/she is like in comparison with his/her peers. Research conducted so far has shown that teachers lack sufficient knowledge about gifted pupils (Chan and Yuen, 2015; Cheung and Hui, 2011), and that they usually do not implement differentiated instruction to meet the needs of different pupils (Yuen, Westwood, and Wong, 2005; Wan, 2015). Such results are devastating, considering that a meta-analysis of research dealing with the effects of differentiated instruction in the teaching process has shown that differentiated instruction has a positive impact on academic achievement by talented pupils and on their socio-emotional development (Kim, 2016). Furthermore, research by Stavroula, Leonidas and Mary (2011) shows that pupils who are exposed to differentiated instruction achieve better results than those who learn in traditional classrooms. Despite that, teachers often resist differentiated instruction because they lack the competences to implement it (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau and Landrum, 1997). Sometimes even the content of in-service teacher training programs is deficient in the area of education for gifted and talented pupils (Kukanja Gabrijelcic, 2014). Although more recent study programmes at teacher education faculties emphasize the need to implement differentiated instruction, they often fail to teach prospective teachers how it should be done. The lack of competences among future teachers to conduct this extremely important process is correlated with practical implementation of differentiated instruction. An analysis of future teachers’ lesson plans in the study conducted by Skribe Dimec (2013) showed insufficient presence of elements of differentiated instruction in primary science education, as well as a lack of differentiation elements in the majority of teaching materials for primary-level science. Although many teachers emphasize the importance of differentiated instruction and advocate the need to implement it, their teaching methods do not coincide with their beliefs. Another problem is that differentiated instruction requires much longer preparation for the teaching process. There is also the misconception that differentiated instruction cannot be implemented because of the traditional methods used to assess pupils’ achievements. The biggest challenge for the implementation of differentiated instruction is the teachers’ lack of confidence in their own ability to implement it properly (Hawkins, 2009). Moreover, teachers often raise concerns that differentiated instruction would benefit only some pupils. However, this concern is unjustified, as research shows that properly implemented differentiated instruction benefits all pupils (McQuarrie, McRae and Stack-Cutler, 2008). There are, however, certain disadvantages to differentiated instruction. The main weakness is the lack of unique guidelines for its implementation (Huebner, 2010), which stems from the differences in structure of each individual school class. Furthermore, differentiated instruction involves additional pressure on teachers to provide support for pupils with special needs, which is usually only provided by experts. In addition, the process cannot take place only once, but needs to be repeated continuously over a lengthy period of time, which requires patience and persistence from teachers (Tomlinson, 2001). Furthermore, some pupils might need much more support than a competent teacher is able to provide during the differentiated instruction process (Tomlinson et al. 1997). When implementing differentiated instruction for gifted pupils, teachers will develop more complex learning activities for such pupils (Huebner, 2010). The emphasis is placed on inquiry-based learning, during which a pupil can experience the joys and frustrations of creative productivity. Through appropriate differentiated instruction methods, gifted pupils are presented with additional challenges to help maintain their interest and attention, and appropriately develop their abilities. Only by being presented with such challenges can gifted pupils develop persistence, curiosity and intellectual risk taking (Tomlinson, 2001). When working with gifted pupils in primary school science classes, the goal is to support the development of an advanced level of understanding and knowledge, the development of self-regulated learning, commitment to the task, self-esteem and the sense of creative accomplishment in such children. During the differentiated instruction process, teachers will help pupils understand their abilities, interests and learning styles. Maker’s model (1982) suggests that a curriculum which best supports gifted learners’ skills should be differentiated in the key areas of content, process, product and learning environment (Figure 1). Figure 1. Maker`s (1982) model of the differentiated curriculum for highly able pupils Research methodology Research objective This paper presents the results of a study to determine whether teachers in the first four grades of elementary school implement differentiated instruction for gifted pupils in primary school science classes, which of those differentiated instruction techniques they implement and how frequently. Hypotheses H(1) Teachers frequently (once a week) implement all differentiated instruction techniques for pupils who are gifted at natural sciences in primary school science classes. H(2) Teachers use differentiated instruction techniques more frequently when working with gifted pupils than with other pupils in primary school science classes. H(3) There is no statistically significant difference in the frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques in primary school science classes. Research instruments, variables and data processing For the purpose of this research, a questionnaire was developed that was modelled on a similar questionnaire by Archambault et. al. (1993). The statements from this questionnaire were partially modified and adapted to the peculiarities of teaching science in primary school. Before using the instrument, a pilot study was conducted on a smaller, targeted sample for the purpose of testing it. After that, any ambiguities within the instrument were removed, allowing it to be used in research on a larger sample. The questionnaire consists of three sections. The purpose of the first section was to collect demographic data on respondents and to establish whether they had participated in any courses or professional training during their teaching career that dealt with the topic of working with gifted pupils. The second part of the questionnaire was aimed at determining how often the respondents implement differentiated instruction when working with gifted pupils and with other pupils in primary school science classes. This section of the questionnaire comprised a scale consisting of 38 items (statements) divided into six subscales related to several different groups of differentiated instruction techniques used to encourage the development of gifted pupils: (1) Asking questions and developing higher-order thinking; (2) Offering challenges and choices; (3) Differentiated tasks, which include reading and writing; (4) Changes in the curriculum; (5) Learning Enrichment Centres; (6) Individual work in pupils’ work stations. Teachers provided their own assessments of the frequency of implementation of these techniques using a six-point Likert scale (1=never, 2=very rarely (once or twice a semester), 3=rarely (once a month), 4=occasionally (2 or 3 times a month), 5=often (once a week), 6=always (in every class)). The dependent research variable is the frequency of implementation of differentiated instruction techniques for gifted pupils in primary school science classes. Independent variables are a program concept and the context of learning (lower grades of primary education and primary science classes). The following statistical measurements and data processing procedures were used: descriptive statistics to determine basic statistical indicators in interpreting research results, a t-test to compare the mean of a continuous variable in two different groups and ANOVA for comparison of mean values of the variable in more than three groups. Respondents The study was conducted by means of a survey, and the sample included teachers of lower (first to fourth) grades of elementary school (N=134). The sample predominantly included female respondents (97%), whereas in terms of qualification level there was an equal representation of respondents with graduate level qualifications (56%) and undergraduate level qualifications (44%). In terms of years of service, the respondents were divided into six groups. The first group comprised respondents with 0 to 5 years of service (20.9%); the second group comprised those with 6 to 10 years of service (14.9%); the third group comprised those with 11 to 15 years of service (23.1%); the following group were teachers with 16 to 20 years of service (9.7%), then those with 21 to 25 years of service (19.4%), and finally those with 25 or more years of service (11.9%). For the question whether teachers had participated in any professional development course or training dealing with the topic of instruction for gifted pupils during their teaching career, the respondents were divided into those whose answer to that question was affirmative (30.6%) and those whose answer was negative (69.4%). Results and discussion The differentiated instruction methods most frequently used by teachers when working with gifted pupils in primary school science classes, in the group of techniques based on asking questions and developing higher-order thinking, are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Techniques based on asking questions and developing higher-order thinking Items M SD I achieve the educational outcomes related to thinking skills which are defined by the curriculum. 4.51 1.68 I encourage critical thinking and creative problem solving in science classes. 4.47 1.59 I encourage pupils to ask more complex questions in science classes. 4.01 1.62 I encourage pupils to discuss the given issue among themselves. 4.01 1.45 Total 4.28 1.41 The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=4.28; SD=1.41, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are implemented occasionally (2 or 3 times a month) in science classes. Higher-order questions develop pupils’ critical thinking skills and help pupils to apply, analyse, synthesise and evaluate information, instead of simply reproducing facts. Taylor et al. (2003) emphasize that pupils whose teachers use questions at a higher cognitive level reach higher levels of knowledge, while Hus and Legvart claim (2016) that questions and cognition development are strongly connected. Therefore, it is very important to incorporate these instruction techniques into everyday teaching practice, instead of using them only a few times a month. Educational equality requires providing each pupil with challenges that meet their abilities (Davidson, Davidson, and Vanderkam, 2004). The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated instruction techniques based on offering challenges and choices to gifted pupils are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Techniques based on offering challenges and choices Items M SD I prepare pupils for participation in natural science competitions. 1.82 1.48 I suggest additional sources of knowledge to pupils during science class (journals, encyclopaedias, children’s books etc.). 3.29 1.34 I suggest that the pupil attend science class in a higher grade. 1.44 1.20 I bring additional sources of knowledge (journals, encyclopaedias, children’s books etc.) to science class and encourage pupils to use these in their work. 3.37 1.48 Total 2.68 1.04 The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=2.68; SD=1.41, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely implemented in science classes. Gifted pupils in primary science are more engaged and can fulfil their potential when teachers set high expectations, along with assignments and activities that challenge them appropriately (Council of Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment [CCEA], 2006). Challenging problems help gifted pupils to “cultivate their high-level thinking skills, while also providing opportunities to advance their metacognitive skills, feelings of ownership, motivation, and engagement levels” (Matsko and Thomas, 2014, p. 160)). Absence of these instruction techniques can have a negative influence on gifted pupils’ motivation for learning, which is why they need to be implemented more frequently in practice. The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean value in the group of differentiated instruction techniques based on task assignments that involve reading and writing are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Techniques based on task assignments that involve reading and writing Items M SD I use more complex texts about certain topics which require higher-order thinking in science classes. 2.90 1.45 I require pupils to write a report on a given topic in science classes. 3.04 1.32 In science classes I give pupils the task of writing a presentation about a book they have read. 1.82 1.02 In science classes the pupil is given the task of writing an essay on a topic assigned by the teacher, in which the pupil needs to present or explain the given topic in a creative manner. 1.94 1.00 Total 2.44 1.02 The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ responses to this group of questions is M=2.44; SD=1.02, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are very rarely implemented in science classes (1 or 2 times a year). Independent reading and writing assignments offer opportunities for developing fluency as well as practice with comprehension strategies and decoding skills (Clay, 1991). At the same time, there should be some opportunity for pupil choice, since pupils can often read materials above their instructional reading level if they are interested in and excited about a specific topic (Ancrum and Bean, 2008). This is a demanding procedure that requires good reading skills and orientation in written texts, which is not yet fully developed in pupils aged 7 to 10. This is probably why teachers only rarely apply this differentiation technique in their teaching practice. The highest and lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated instruction techniques based on changes to the curriculum are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Techniques based on changes to the curriculum Items M SD I use pre-tests to assess pupils’ prior knowledge of a specific teaching unit or teaching content and change the curriculum accordingly. 2.31 1.62 I eliminate and do not use the curriculum content that pupils have already mastered well. 1.87 1.09 In science classes we analyse and study teaching content that is more complex and more demanding for pupils. 3.66 1.09 In science classes I use different teaching methods for pupils who are able to learn the teaching content more quickly. 3.47 1.42 Total 2.84 1.06 The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ responses to this group of questions is M=2.84; SD=1.06, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely implemented (once a month) in science classes. An effective curriculum for pupils who are gifted is essentially a basic curriculum that has been modified to meet their needs. It can be modified in content, process, product expectations or learning environment. Both content and learning experiences can be modified through acceleration, compacting, variety, reorganization, flexible pacing, and the use of more advanced or complex concepts and abstractions. On the other hand, modification of the process can include restructured activities, more intellectually demanding for highly able pupils. They need to be challenged by questions that require a higher level of response and stimulate inquiry, active exploration, and discovery. Activities should meet pupils’ interests and encourage pupils’ self-directed learning. Also, the learning environment should encourage pupils’ creativity, inquiry and independence, and needs to be pupil-centred and receptive. The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ responses in this group of differentiation techniques is not satisfactory and shows that the respondents’ teaching practice does not meet the needs of gifted pupils in primary school science classes. The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated instruction techniques based on enrichment centres are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Techniques based on enrichment centres Items M SD In science classes I allow pupils a certain amount of time to pursue their own particular interests in the field of natural sciences. 3.31 1.32 During science classes I organize workstations in the classroom and encourage pupils to use these and perform various activities. 3.03 1.54 I sometimes work on science curriculum content with pupils even after class. 2.05 1.25 I include pupils in extracurricular activities related to natural sciences. 2.15 1.32 Total 2.73 1.06 The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=2.73; SD=1.06, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely implemented (once a month) in science classes. Enrichment centres enhance a pupil's educational experience and allow participants to meet their interests. Pupils are working on subject matter in more depth or breadth. This technique can be easily implemented in the classroom by grouping pupils with similar abilities to complete activities at their learning levels or be organized as an extra-curricular activity for gifted pupils. The main purpose is highlighting the talents of gifted pupils and investing in their abilities to motivate their creativity. The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated instruction techniques based on individual work of gifted pupils at their workstations are shown in Table 7. Table 7. Techniques based on individual work of gifted pupils at their work stations Items M SD In science classes I use worksheets to help develop pupils’ basic skills. 3.47 1.31 In science classes I use worksheets enriched with additional material for the development of pupils’ specific skills. 2.91 1.24 I instruct pupils to use computers in science classes. 3.47 1.55 Total 3.30 1.05 The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=3.30; SD=1.05, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely implemented in science classes, with a mild tendency towards occasional implementation. Individual work forms an important part of effective provision for gifted and talented pupils. Individualized learning offers the pupil the possibility of working on his/her own research topics, encourages him/her to make decisions about the domains of learning, supports him/her in working efficiently in a manner best suited to his/her needs and motivates him/her for self-regulating learning (Kelemen, 2010). It is relatively easy to apply in everyday teaching practice, so the frequency of its use is slightly higher compared to other differentiation techniques. By comparing the arithmetic mean values of respondents’ answers regarding the frequency of implementation of various differentiated instruction techniques in science classes, in some subscales we can establish that most differentiated instruction techniques are rarely implemented, which is why the first hypothesis (H1), which posited that teachers frequently implement all differentiated instruction techniques for gifted pupils, is rejected. Table 8 shows the results of testing the statistical significance of differences in the frequency of implementation of specific groups of differentiated instruction techniques for gifted and other pupils in science classes in mixed-ability classes. Table 8. Statistical significance of differences in the frequency of implementation of specific groups of differentiated instruction techniques for gifted and other pupils in science classes Pupils M SD t-test p Asking questions and developing higher-order thinking gifted 4.28 1.41 -1.19 0.24 others 4.45 0.96 Offering challenges and choices gifted 2.68 1,04 0.46 0.64 others 2.62 0.81 Task assignments that involve reading and writing gifted 2.44 1.02 1.14 0.25 others 2.31 0.84 Changes to the curriculum gifted 2.84 1.06 -0.21 0.83 others 2.86 0.85 Enrichment centres gifted 2.73 1.06 0.45 0.65 others 2.68 0.88 Individual work gifted 3.30 1.05 -1.06 0.29 others 3.41 0.70 According to the data shown in Table 8, it can be concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the implementation of differentiated instruction techniques for gifted and other pupils in a mixed-ability class, i.e., that the differentiated instruction techniques are equally frequently implemented for both groups of pupils. Hence, the second hypothesis (H2), which posited that teachers implement differentiated instruction techniques more frequently when working with gifted pupils than with other pupils in science classes, is also rejected. This finding is satisfactory because differentiated instruction in a heterogeneous school class should be available to all pupils, since it encourages them to be as successful as possible in the educational process. The problem, however, is that the identified frequency of implementation of various differentiated instruction techniques is relatively low, which is why the lack of a significant difference in the frequency of implementation is not particularly noteworthy. In order to determine the difference in the frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques among gifted pupils, we conducted the ANOVA test (Table 9). Table 9. The difference in the frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques among gifted pupils Sum of squares df Mean square F p Between groups 297.49 5 59.49 47.80 0.00 Within groups 993.29 798 1.25 Total 1290.79 803 According to the data shown in Table 9, we notice that the significance level is p=0.00 with regard to testing the difference in the frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques when dealing with gifted pupils, which is why we can establish that there is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of their implementation. By means of a post hoc Tukey test, we have established that there are significant differences between most differentiated instruction techniques. Thus, in science classes, the frequency of using questioning techniques to develop pupils’ thinking skills is statistically more significant than the frequency of using all other differentiated instruction techniques. Moreover, the frequency of having pupils do individual work at workstations is statistically more significant than the frequency of implementing the methods of offering challenges and choices, assigning differentiated tasks that involve reading and writing, changing the curriculum and Learning Enrichment Centres. Therefore, the third hypothesis (H3), which posited that there is no statistically significant difference in the frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques in science classes, is also rejected. Conclusion Based on the results of this research, it can be concluded that the majority of teachers rarely (once a month) implement most of these differentiated instruction techniques in primary school science classes. The only technique that is more frequently implemented is the technique of asking questions, whose aim is to develop pupils’ thinking skills. Such findings confirm the results of earlier studies (e.g., Yuen et al., 2016; Wan, 2015). This situation in the teaching practice is particularly concerning because it means that in elementary education, there is no adequate support for the development of pupils gifted at natural sciences. This is particularly unfavourable because gifted pupils need to be identified as early as possible in the course of their education so that their potential can be developed as soon as possible. Here, however, we should also emphasise some limitations of the research. Namely, some education experts (Stevenson and Stigler, 1992) believe that teaching practice needs to be directly observed in order to be assessed more precisely. They also emphasise that the research questions in the questionnaire can only partially clarify teacher behaviour, while direct observation of their teaching could help determine the difference between efficient and inefficient practice. This is further supported by research conducted by Burstein, McDonnell, Van Winkle, Ormseth, Mirocha and Guiton (1995), according to which the coincidence between teachers’ self-assessment of their practice and their actual practice is only 40-60%. That is why the findings of this study will be tested in a future research study based on observation of teachers’ teaching practice and methods in primary school science classes. Moreover, the results of this study raise the question why differentiated instruction techniques are not implemented frequently enough in actual teaching practice. One reason for this might be insufficient development of teachers’ competences to implement differentiated instruction. Therefore, it is important to include training in practical implementation of differentiated instruction strategies in formal initial teacher training programmes, which would allow teachers to acquire the appropriate competences and implement them in their teaching practice with more confidence, more efficiently and more frequently. It would also be necessary to organize various forms of high-quality professional development courses for teachers who already work in the education system, to allow them to understand the importance and function of differentiated instruction, and to use these strategies more frequently, thus promoting the appropriate development of gifted pupils. Differentiation should become a constant and systematic practice in classrooms, not an occasional event. Because only a few research studies dealing with the use of differentiation have been conducted in Croatia, and there is a lack of appropriate guidelines for implementing this method in teaching practice, the research findings presented in this paper help identify current educational practices and suggest that there is a need to improve those aspects of teaching practice related to the development of gifted pupils. Moreover, the theoretical overview, which emphasizes the importance of differentiation, can contribute to its popularization and lead to more frequent implementation of this method in teaching practice. The findings of this study should encourage teachers to use appropriate differentiation methods more frequently to facilitate the development of gifted pupils’ potential. This study could also serve as an incentive towards further studies of the efficiency of differentiation for the development of competences among gifted pupils, as well as those that will determine how teacher training programmes can affect the development of teacher competences that are necessary for the implementation of differentiation methods in primary school science classes. References Ancrum, J. W., and Bean R. M. (2008). Differentiated Reading Instruction: What and How, Reading Horizons, 48(2), 133–146. Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., and Zhang, W. (1993). Regular Classroom Practices with Gifted Pupils: Results of a National Survey of Classroom Teachers. The University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha J., and Guitton G. (1995). Validating National Curriculum Indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Chan, S. and Yuen, M. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs and practices for nurturing creativity in pupils: perspectives from teachers of gifted pupils in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 31(3), 200–213. Cheung, H. Y. and Hui, S. K. F. (2011). Competencies and characteristics for teaching gifted pupils: a comparative study of Beijing and Hong Kong teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 139–148. Clay, M. (1991). Becoming Literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., and Gross, M. (Eds.) (2004). A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest pupils (pp. 109-117). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa Council of Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) (2006). Gifted and Talented Children in (and out) of the Classroom. Retrieved from https://giftedphoenix.files.wordpress.c-om/2012/11/gifted_children_060306.pdf (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.) Davidson, J., Davidson, B., and Vanderkam, L. (2004). Genius Denied: How to stop wasting our brightest young minds. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks Davis. G. A., and Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. Hall, T., Strangman, N., and Meyer, A. (2007). Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation. NCAC Effective Classroom Practice Report. Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to Implementing Differentiation: Lack of Confidence, efficacy and preserverance. NERA Journal, 44(2), 11–16. Huebner, T. (2010). Differentiated Learning. Educational Leadership, 67, 79–81. Hus, V., and Legvart., P. (2016). Using questions as a tool for encouraging higher thinking processes in a social science class, Školski vjesnik: casopis za pedagogijsku teoriju i praksu, 65(2), 211–226. Kelemen, G. (2010). A personalized model design for gifted children’ education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 3981–3987. Kim, M. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Enrichment Programs on Gifted Pupils, Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. Kukanja Gabrijelcic, M. (2014). Država, ucitelj in delo z nadarjenimi ucenci: med poslanstvom in odgovornostjo, Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 83–97. Maker, C. J. (1982). Teaching Models in the Education of the Gifted, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX. Matsko, V. and Thomas, J. (2014). The problem is the solution: Creating original problems in gifted mathematics classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 153–170. McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., and Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated Instruction Provincial Research Review. University of Alberta. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.assembly.ab.c–a/lao/library/egovdocs/2008/aled/168784.pdf (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.) Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos, Roeper Review, 19(1), 4-12. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553774 (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.) Mönks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In: F. J. Mönks and W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future. Proceedings of the ninth world conference on gifted and talented children (pp. 191–202). Assen: Van Gorcum. Munro, J. (2012). Effective strategies for implementing differentiated instruction [Paper presentation]. 2012 - School Improvement: What does research tell us about effective strategies? Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2012/27august/14 (Accessed: 7. 6. 2020.) Pereira Da Costa, M. and Lubart, T. I. (2016). Gifted and talented children: Heterogeneity and individual differences, Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 662–671. Petrovich, G. (2005). Gifted and Talented Education. University of Michigan. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. Rogers, K. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented. Paper Review, 24, 103–107. Rogers, K. B., and Span, P. (1993). Ability grouping with gifted and talented pupils: research and guidelines. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, and A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 3–28). Oxford, Pergamon Press. Schmitt, C., and Goebel, V. (2015). Experiences of high-ability high school students: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 428–446. Skribe Dimec, D. (2013). Diferenciacija pri poucevanju naravoslovja v prvem in drugem vzgojno izobraževalnem obdobju osnovne šole, Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2-3), 193–211. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest pupils (Vol. 2, pp. 5–12). Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nat–ion_Deceived/ND_v2.pdf (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.) Stavroula, V. A., Leonidas, K., and Mary, K. (2011). Investigating the Impact of Differentiated Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms: It’s [sic] impact on the Quality and Equity Dimensions of Education Effectiveness. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticschol–ar.org/2105/2d28179d01df264cad4e9d015c19c6361256.pdf (Accessed: 10. 6. 2020.) Taber, K.S. (2010). Challenging gifted learners: general principles for science educators; and exemplification in the context of teaching chemistry, Science Education International, 21(1), 5–30. Taylor, B. M., Peardon, P. D., Peterson, D. S., Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading Growth in High-Poverty Classrooms. The Influence of Teacher Practices that Encourage Cognitive Engagement in Literacy Learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3–28. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated Instruction in the Regular Classroom: What Does it Mean? How Does it Look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3–6. Tomlinson, C. A. and Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A. and McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction: Understanding by Design. ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A. and Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in Practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 9–12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C., Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., and Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming Architects of Communities of Learning. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 269–282. Wallace, B., Bernardelli, A., and Molyneux, C. (2012). TASC: Thinking actively in a social context. A universal problem-solving process: a powerful tool to promote differentiated learning experiences. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 58–83. Wan, S. W. Y. (2015). Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs. Teachers and Teaching, 22(2), 1–29. Yuen, M., Westwood, P., and Wong, G. (2005). Meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties in mainstream classrooms. International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 67–76. Yuen, M., Chan, S., Chan, C., Fung, D. C. L., Cheung, W. M., Kwan, T., and Leung, F. K. S. (2016). Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted pupils in regular classes: A project for primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 36–46. Author Dr. Alena Letina Assistant professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Teacher Education, Savska cesta 77, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, e-mail: alena.letina@ufzg.hr Docentka, Univerza v Zagrebu, Uciteljska fakulteta, Savska cesta 77, 10000 Zagreb, Hrvaška, e-pošta: alena.letina@ufzg.hr ŠOLSKI VRTOVI V POMURSKI REGIJI Potrjeno/Accepted 5. 4. 2021 Objavljeno/Published 30. 9. 2021 JANA AMBROŽIC DOLINŠEK1, DANE KATALINIC2 & PATRICIJA UTROŠA3 1 Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Fakulteta za naravoslovje in matematiko, Maribor, Slovenija 2 Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Maribor, Slovenija 3 Osnovna šola Franceta Prešerna Crenšovci, Crenšovci, Slovenija CORRESPONDING AUTHOR/KORESPONDENCNI AVTOR/ jana.ambrozic@um.si Keywords: school garden, gardening, elementary school, learning, Pomurje region Kljucne besede: šolski vrt, vrtnarjenje, osnovna šola, ucenje, Pomurska regija UDK/UDC 373.3:635.1/.8(497.411) Izvlecek/Abstract S šolskim vrtom povezano ucenje ima na Slovenskem bogato tradicijo in je danes globalno prepoznano gibanje. V prispevku predstavimo delovanje šolskih vrtov v najbolj ravninski in kmetijski regiji Slovenije, v Pomurski regiji, ter njihovo vkljucevanje v pedagoški proces naravoslovnih predmetov. Polovica (19 izmed 38) osnovnih šol v Pomurju ima šolski vrt. Odlocitev za šolski vrt je prepušcena dobri volji vodstva in interesu uciteljev, pri cemer gre za prostovoljno delo uciteljev. Šolski vrt bi bilo nujno vkljuciti v ucne nacrte naravoslovnih predmetov, saj aktivnosti, povezane z vrtnarjenjem, dolgorocno prispevajo k razvoju Pomurja kot pomembne kmetijske regije. School Garden in the Pomurje Region School-based learning has a long tradition in Slovenia and is now a globally recognized movement. We present the operation of school gardens in the most agricultural region of Slovenia, the Pomurje region, and their inclusion in the pedagogical process of science subjects. Half (19 out of 38) of the primary schools in Pomurje have school gardens. The decision to establish a school garden depends on the good will of the school management and the voluntary interest of the teachers. It would be necessary to include school gardening in science curricula. Garden-related activities contribute to the development of Pomurje as an important agricultural region. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.301-316.2021 Besedilo / Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobcitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Uvod S šolskim vrtom povezano ucenje je danes globalno prepoznano gibanje. Smo v casu, ko je vrtnarjenje znova popularno, to pa vpliva tudi na ponovno zanimanje in obujanje aktivnosti, povezanih s šolskimi vrtovi. Po letu 2000 so zacela številna gibanja in društva poudarjati pomen lokalno pridelane hrane in izobraževanja za trajnostni razvoj. Odraz tega je viden tudi v osnovnih in srednjih šolah, vrtcih ter drugih zavodih. Število šolskih vrtov se iz leta v leto veca (Ribaric, 2014). Med zelo uspešnimi programi sta Šolski ekovrt (b. d.) v organizaciji Inštituta za trajnostni razvoj in Šolska vrtilnica (b. d.) v okviru projekta Ekošole. Šolski vrtovi so pomemben sodobni ucni in vzgojni pripomocek in pomemben vidik naravoslovne pismenosti. Omogocajo neposreden stik z naravo, spremljanje rasti in razvoja rastlin, živali in drugih organizmov. Neposreden stik z naravo je osnovni pogoj za razvoj custvene povezanosti z naravo in pridobivanje znanja o njej (Kühnis in Fahrni, 2021). Skrb za organizme je dragocena vsakdanja izkušnja za otroke in ucence, ki imajo vse manj neposrednega stika z naravo in s pridelavo hrane. V novejšem casu pomeni šolski vrt ucilnico v naravi in je povezovalni element poucevanja razlicnih ucnih predmetov. Je ucencem primerno okolje, kjer ugotavljajo zvezo med vzrokom in posledico ter spoznavajo osnovne zakonitosti, ki potekajo v naravi. Prav tako ponuja vrt spremljanje rasti in razvoja rastlin (Ribaric, 2014). Škof (2013) navaja in opredeljuje šolski vrt kot sestavni del vsake šole, kot okras in ogledalo šole ter osebno izkaznico vodstva šole. Velikokrat se enaci z ucilnico v naravi; za razliko od ucilnice med štirimi stenami lahko rabi poucevanju razlicnih ucnih predmetov. Ne glede na to, ali poteka v ucilnici ali na prostem, vkljucuje spoznavanje življenjskega kroga živih bitij in ciklicnih ritmov narave. Šolski vrt je idealno okolje za razvoj kompetenc, opredeljenih kot kombinacija znanja, spretnosti in odnosov, ustrezajocih okolišcinam (Priporocilo Evropskega parlamenta in Evropskega Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2006 o kljucnih kompetencah za vseživljenjsko izobraževanje, 2006). Vkljucuje uporabo naravoslovnih postopkov, kot so opazovanje, razvršcanje, urejanje, štetje, merjenje, napovedovanje, povezovanje, raziskovanje, sklepanje, sporocanje (Kolar idr., 2011), in sicer v skladu z osnovno in nerevidirano Bloomovo taksonomijo ucnih ciljev (Kratwochl, 2002; Anderson, 2002). Takšno vzgojno-izobraževalno delo zahteva svoj cas, saj je treba razviti sposobnosti sodelovanja v ucilnici na prostem. Pri tem je pomembno, da vodi v razvoj neodvisnosti in sposobnosti za nenehno raziskovanje (Getting Started: A Guide for Creating School Gardens as Outdoor Classrooms, 2009). Vkljucevanje šolskega vrta v pouk ima lahko razlicne pozitivne ucinke na ucence. Utrjuje medsebojne odnose med otroki, mladostniki in odraslimi s šolo (Škof, 2013; Dyment in Bell, 2008). Ucenci, ki se cutijo povezani s šolo, imajo manj težav z agresivnim vedenjem (Resnick idr., 1997). Ozer (2007) poudarja pozitivne ucinke, ki se zrcalijo v zdravju otrok. Otroci spoznavajo vrste sadja in zelenjave, v vecji meri posegajo po njih. Fizicno delo na vrtu pa prispeva k vec gibanja. Dejavnosti v šolskem vrtu povecujejo koncentracijo, motiviranost in samodisciplino pri ucencih ter pozitivno vplivajo na zmanjševanje specificnih ucnih težav in motenj pozornosti (Dyment in Bell, 2008). Šolski vrtovi in s šolskim vrtom povezano ucenje ima na slovenskem bogato tradicijo (Ribaric, 2014). Zacetek sega v leto 1869, z uvedbo obvezne osnovne šole na Slovenskem, ko je bilo v tretjem osnovnošolskem zakonu šolam, predvsem podeželskim, priporoceno, da naredijo šolski vrt, ki bo opravljal naloge ucilnice v naravi. Na uciteljišcih, ki so izobraževala bodoce uciteljice in ucitelje, je bil šolski vrt obvezen del ucnega programa. Zgodovino in pomen šolskih vrtov v preteklosti dobro povzema razstava Slovenskega šolskega muzeja »Ucilnica v naravi ~ šolski vrt vceraj, danes, jutri«, ki jo je uredila kustosinja Šolskega muzeja Mateja Ribaric in je bila prvic postavljena leta 2014. Gradivo razstave s starimi fotografijami iz razlicnih obdobij, nacrti šolskih vrtov in izseki iz knjig ter casopisov prikazujejo pomen šolskih vrtov v posameznih šolah po Sloveniji. Intervjuji in vsebina pouka ter dela pa izkazujejo prednosti šolskih vrtov z vzgojnega vidika. Pomen vrtov za Slovence ilustrira tudi navedba Ribariceve (2014), da slovenski jezik pozna vec kot 40 razlicnih poimenovanj vrta (Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, 2014), pri tem so najzanimivejša poimenovanja, recimo: cvetlicni, divnjak, sadovnjak, zelenjak (Sinonimni slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, 2018). Pomurska regija ima ugodne naravne danosti za gospodarske dejavnosti, povezane s kmetijstvom. V Pomurju je zato kmetijstvo pomembna pretekla in sedanja gospodarska dejavnost, kar daje Pomurju pretežno agrarni znacaj (Cunder, 2009). Kmetijska dejavnost pomeni precejšen razvojni potencial, ki ga je treba razvijati in negovati. Konkurencnost pomurskega podeželja je mogoce povecati z inovativnimi rešitvami za razvoj turizma na kmetijah in z biopredelavo (Sankovic idr., 2015). Kmetijska zemljišca, ki so v uporabi, so leta 2013 pokrivala polovico ozemlja pomurske regije, to pomeni najvec med vsemi regijami (Regije v številkah – statisticni portret slovenskih regij 2016, 2016). Leta 2011 je površina kmetijskih zemljišc v pomurski regiji merila 61 % skupne površine regije, od tega 41 % obdelovalne površine (Sankovic idr., 2015). Površina kmetijskih zemljišc v Sloveniji je v zadnjih letih manjša kar za 42 %. Površina zemljišc v Pomurju se je v obdobju med letoma 1986 in 2006 – v primerjavi s površino kmetijskih zemljišc v Sloveniji – povecala za slabih 14 %. Ker je ta gospodarska panoga v tem delu Slovenije tako zelo pomembna, je kljucno tudi, kako poteka izobraževanje na tem podrocju. Lahko se zacne že v osnovni šoli z aktivnostmi, povezanimi s šolskimi vrtovi. Pri tem ne gre samo za vzgojo in izobraževanje dobrih kmetovalcev, pridelovalcev hrane in vrtnarjev, ampak tudi kljucnih nosilcev kmetijske politike (Škof, 2013). Ker je razvoj pomurske regije tesno povezan z razvojem kmetijstva, in sicer z razvojem razlicnih modernih oblik pridelave in predelave hrane in drugih surovin (Sankovic idr., 2015), menimo, da je treba otroke že zelo zgodaj navajati na izkorišcanje naravnih danosti regije. Namen raziskave je bila analiza stanja šolskih vrtov v najbolj ravninski in kmetijski regiji Slovenije – v Pomurski regiji. Cilj raziskave je bil najprej zbiranje številcnih podatkov o delovanju ter analiza stanja šolskih vrtov na posameznih šolah, nato pa predstavitev vkljucevanja uporabe šolskega vrta v ucne nacrte ter v pedagoški proces naravoslovnih predmetov. Raziskava poleg številcnih podatkov o tem, koliko in kakšne šolske vrtove imamo v Pomurju, ponuja tudi smernice za delo s šolskimi vrtovi v prihodnje. Material in metode Raziskovalni vzorec Raziskava je bila izvedena v dveh locenih delih, ki temeljita na neslucajnostnem priložnostnem vzorcu pomurskih osnovnih šol v letu 2016/17, in sicer od maja do junija 2017, pri cemer je bilo v prvo raziskavo zajetih 38 šol, v drugo pa 9. Pomurske šole predstavljajo 8,4 % celotne populacije šol v Sloveniji, teh je skupno 454. Šole z najvec 199 ucencev smo oznacili kot malo šolo in šole z 200–600 ucenci kot veliko šolo. Prav tako so bila posamezna vprašanja zastavljena glede na odzivnost intervjuvanca. Podrobna analiza podatkov, pridobljenih z intervjujem, je zajemala: vrste vrtov in rastlin, velikost in lokacijo vrta, organiziranost in izgradnjo vrta, vkljucenost pomurskih osnovnih šol v projekte, vkljucenost ucencev in staršev v delovanje vrta ter uporabo pridelkov z vrta. Postopki obdelave podatkov Podatke, pridobljene z uporabo spletnega anketnega vprašalnika in intervjujev, smo najprej zbrali v programu Excel in jih racunalniško obdelali s statisticnim programom SPSS® 22.0 (ang. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences – SPSS). Prikazani so z navedbo absolutnih (f) in odstotnih frekvenc (f %). Za izracun statisticno pomembnih razlik smo uporabili .˛-preizkus. Rezultati in diskusija V zacetku raziskave smo poskušali dolociti pomen pojma šolski vrt. Ugotovili smo, da je v Slovarju slovenskega knjižnega jezika beseda vrt definirana na vec nacinov: 1) manjše zemljišce, navadno blizu hiše, na katerem raste trava, drevje, se goji vrtnina, okrasne rastline; 2) negovano zemljišce z okrasnim rastlinjem, navadno za sprehode, oddih; 3) posebej urejeno zemljišce kot del gostinskega lokala; 4) s prilastkom zemljišce, na katerem se gojijo rastline, živali, zlasti za študijske in splošno-izobraževalne namene: botanicni, pomološki vrt; šolski vrt … (Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, 2014). Samo v okviru permakulture poznamo vec tipov in poimenovanj vrtov: gozdni vrt, sinergicni vrt (gomilaste grede), spiralne gredice, vodni ekosistemi kot del vrta, vrt z živimi organizmi, zasaditev posod, vrticek okoli drevesa, greda na kartonu ali zelenici, okrogla visoka greda (Vovk Korže, 2015). V definicijo šolskih vrtov lahko vkljucimo gojitev rastlin na prostem, na gredah, v posodah ali na drugih površinah, v razredu ali v drugih delih šolske stavbe in v rastlinjakih (Ribaric, 2014). Šolski vrt je v Urbanisticnem terminološkem slovarju (2016) definiran kot zunanji prostor šole, namensko urejen in zasajen za ucenje o vrtnarjenju, rastlinah in naravnih procesih, lahko namenjen tudi pridelavi hrane. Šuklje Erjavec (2012) opredeljuje dve definiciji šolskih vrtov, v ožjem in širšem smislu. Šolski vrtovi v širšem smislu so zunanji prostori šole, ki poleg zemljišca, ki je namenjeno vzgoji vrtnin, okrasnih gredic in drugih nasadov, vkljucuje tudi športne, parkovne, travnate in gozdne površine. Šolski vrtovi v ožjem smislu se navezujejo le na zemljišce, ki je namenjeno vzgoji vrtnin, poljšcin, sadju, okrasnim gredicam in nasadom. Tema naše raziskave so bili šolski vrtovi v ožjem smislu in se navezuje na zemljišce, ki je namenjeno vzgoji vrtnin, poljšcin, sadju, okrasnim gredicam in nasadom (Šuklje Erjavec, 2012). V raziskavi smo predstavili številske podatke o šolskih vrtovih na 38 pomurskih osnovnih šolah v šolskem letu 1916/17, nekatere pa smo tudi obiskali in analizirali. Samo polovica, 19 izmed 38 pomurskih osnovnih šol, je imela urejen šolski vrt. Šolske vrtove je imela vec kot polovica malih šol (z najvec 199 ucenci) in manj kot polovica velikih šol (z od 200 do 600 ucenci). Od 38 pomurskih šol je bil šolski vrt urejen na 12 manjših šolah (52 %), 11 malih šol (48 %) pa je bilo brez njega. Od 15 velikih šol je bil šolski vrt urejen na 7 velikih šolah (47 %), 8 velikih šol (53 %) pa je bilo brez njega. Razlike med malimi in vecjimi šolami niso statisticno znacilne (.2 = 0,110; df = 1; p = 0,740). Zanimivo pri tem je, da je šolski vrt v preteklosti imelo od 11 od 14 osnovnih šol (79 %), ki so bile v casu anketiranja brez šolskega vrta, in da si ga v prihodnje želi imeti od 12 od 14 osnovnih šol (86 %), sedaj brez šolskega vrta. To kaže vsaj na navidezen interes šol, da bi organizirale to dejavnost. Ko smo se pozanimali za razloge, ki polovici šolam (50 %) brez šolskega vrta preprecujejo delovanje šolskih vrtov (tabela 1), je bil najpogostejši med njimi pomanjkanje ustreznega prostora, to navaja 12 šol (57 %) od 19 šol brez šolskega vrta. Naslednji razlog je bil financiranje, to navajajo 3 šole (14 %), nato pa nezanimanje šole, to navaja ena šola (5 %), ter preobremenjenost uciteljev, to navaja ena šola (5 %) od skupaj 19 šol. Kot druge posamezne razloge anketiranci štirih šol (19 %) navajajo še nezainteresiranost uciteljev, zakonske omejitve, stroge pogoje ter merila sistema HACCP. HACCP je angleška kratica za Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, kar pomeni analizo tveganja in ugotavljanja kriticnih kontrolnih tock in je mednarodna metoda zagotavljanja varne prehrane. Sistem HACCP je obvezujoc za pripravo hrane v šolski kuhinji. Tabela 1: Števila (f) in strukturni odstotki (f %) šol po razlogih za nedelovanje šolskega vrta na pomurskih osnovnih šolah. Odgovor f f % Prostorski razlogi 12 57,1 Financni razlogi 3 14,3 Nezanimanje šole 1 4,8 Preobremenjenost uciteljev 1 4,8 Nepomembnost šolskega vrta 0 0,0 Težave z zunanjimi sodelavci 0 0,0 Premajhna usposobljenost uciteljev 0 0,0 Kot drugo navajajo iskanje primernega ucitelja, zakonske omejitve, strogi pogoji, HACCP 4 19,0 Skupaj 21 100,0 V pomurski regiji delujejo šolski vrtovi na 19 (50 %) od 38 pomurskih osnovnih šol. Izmed teh 19 šol jih je bilo samo 9 pripravljenih svoj vrt tudi pokazati in deliti svoje izkušnje s širšo skupnostjo. V šolah pomurske regije ima 42 % šol ekološki vrt, 33 % šol okrasni in 25 % šol naravoslovni vrt, ki je vedno v neposredni bližini šole. Velikost vrta je od 180 m2 do samo 2 m2 in pri obeh najvecjih je v to površino vkljucen tudi sadovnjak. Manj kot polovica osnovnih šol, vkljucenih v raziskavo, ima tudi cebelnjak (44 %). Vecina poroca o velikem zanimanju za cebelarjenje, ki ga tisti brez cebelnjaka rešujejo z organiziranjem krožkov zunaj šole ali obiskom cebelarjev. Šole, ki so bile pripravljene sodelovati in nam predstaviti svoje šolske vrtove, so prepoznale potrebo po tej dejavnosti v kmetijsko zelo intenzivni regiji in kot dodatne razloge za ureditev navedle vkljucenost v projekte (44 %) in/ali urejenost okolice (44 %) ter ozavešcenost o pomembnosti narave (22 %). Najpogosteje omenjeni razlogi za ureditev vrta so tudi vkljucevanje v nekajletne projekte Ekošola in Zdrava šola, nato pa še Šolski ekovrt, Shema šolskega sadja in zelenjave, Zdrav življenjski slog, Tradicionalni slovenski zajtrk, TPLG (Turizmu pomaga lastna glava), Uživajmo v zdravju, Ethink, Entente Florae, Hrana ni za tjavendan, Odpadki, Reciklirana kuharija, Zelena straža. Šole vkljucujejo vrt v pedagoške in nepedagoške dejavnosti, najpogosteje v prvem in drugem triletju, redkeje tudi v tretjem triletju. Najvec osnovnih šole (44 %) ima šolski vrt za pedagoške namene, 33 % šol poleg pedagoških namenov omenja sprostitev, 11 % podaljšano bivanje in 11 % še vzgojo, rekreacijo ali/in neformalna srecanja. V izvenšolskih dejavnostih šole vkljucujejo šolski vrt v interesne dejavnosti (Zelišcni krožek, Eko krožek, Krožek ekovrt, Eko dan), dneve dejavnosti (naravoslovni dnevi), sprostitev, druženje, prakticno delo na vrtu in opazovanje. Šolski vrt v okviru rednega pouka najpogosteje uporabljajo pri predmetih spoznavanje okolja, naravoslovje in tehnika, gospodinjstvo, uporabljajo ga za opazovalne aktivnosti, za prakticno delo in urejanje ali za medpredmetno povezovanje. Šolski vrt v okviru drugega vzgojno-izobraževalnega dela vkljucujejo najveckrat za prakticno delo na vrtu, dneve dejavnosti, podaljšano bivanje, delovne akcije, opazovanje in sprostitev. Za šolske vrtove so v vecini primerov odgovorni razredni ucitelji (67 %), sledijo predmetni ucitelji (22 %) in povezava razrednih in predmetnih uciteljev (11 %). Odgovorni ucitelji sami najpogosteje (67 %) obišcejo šolski vrt tedensko, dva izmed devetih ga obišceta veckrat tedensko in eden od devetih enkrat mesecno. Odgovorni ucitelji skupaj z ucenci obišcejo šolski vrt tedensko (33 %) ali dvakrat na mesec (33 %). Na vrtu gojijo najveckrat zdravilna zelišca, zelenjavo, manj pa drevesa in grmicevje ter cvetoce rastline. Najpogostejša na vrtu gojena zdravilna zelišca so: ognjic, melisa, timijan, meta in drugo. Med najpogostejšo zelenjavo na šolskem vrtu spadajo paradižnik, paprika in peteršilj. Najpogostejše grmovnice so maline in ribez, nato sledijo jagode in borovnice. Samo nekaj vec kot polovica (56 %) šol vkljucuje ucence v izbiro rastlin, posajenih na šolskem. Semena in sadike pridobivajo na vec nacinov, in sicer tako, da jih kupi šola ali pa jih prinesejo ucitelji, starši ali otroci. Intervjuvani velikokrat omenjajo vkljucevanje lokalne družbene skupnosti, sodelovanje lokalnih kmetov, sadjarja, vrtnarja, obcinskih delavcev. Po njihovem mnenju uporabo pridelkov v šolski kuhinji omejujejo odsotnost v casu poletnih pocitnic, zakonodaja in sistem HACCP. Gospodarjenje z vrtom je prepušceno usmeritvam, željam, prostorskim, materialnim in financnim možnostim šole. Tako lahko šola po svoji presoji in možnostih izbere gospodarjenje z vrtom, ki lahko poteka na vec nacinov, in sicer kot permakulturni vrt, biodinamicni vrt in ekoremediacijski vrt. Šolam so v veliko pomoc projekti in programi, v katere se lahko vkljucijo in jim omogocajo postopno vpeljevanje v okolje, kjer pridobijo potrebne izkušnje o vrtnarjenju v šoli ter tudi pomoc pri sami organizaciji, izgradnji in negovanju šolskega vrta. Najdejo jih v številnih brošurah, nastalih v okviru razlicnih prej omenjenih projektov (Šebenik, 2015; Turk idr., 2009). O pomenu šolskih vrtov v izobraževanju srednješolcev porocajo Pogacnik idr., (2012a, b). Šolski vrt je lahko vkljucen v ucne nacrte naravoslovnih predmetov, spoznavanje okolja ter naravoslovje in tehnika, v tematske sklope Prostor, Živa bitja in Clovek. V tabeli 2 smo zbrali tematske sklope iz ucnih nacrtov (Kolar idr., 2011; Vodopivec idr., 2011) z vsebinami posameznega predmeta glede na razred, ki se navezujejo na šolski vrt v prvem in drugem triletju. Veliko teh vsebin je primernih in celo priporocljivih za obravnavo na samem vrtu ali vsaj s pomocjo le-tega, pri cemer bi se lahko organizacija ucnega procesa tudi poenostavila. Tabela 2: Naravoslovne vsebine iz ucnih nacrtov prvega triletja, ki vkljucujejo dejavnosti, povezane s šolskim vrtom in povzete iz Ucnih nacrtov: Program osnovna šola, Spoznavanje okolja (Kolar idr., 2011) in Naravoslovje in tehnika (Vodopivec idr., 2011), ki vkljucujejo aktivnosti, povezane s šolskim vrtom. Prvo triletje – Spoznavanje okolja Tematski sklop Razred Vsebine Prostor 2. Osnovni geografski pojmi: obdelovalne površine (polje, njiva, travnik, sadovnjak) Živa bitja 1. Rastline in živali Pogoji za življenje rastlin (svetloba, voda in rudninske snovi) 2. Razvoj rastline Vrt Pogoji za življenje rastlin (svetloba, voda in rudninske snovi) 3. Življenjski krog (rojstvo, rast, razvoj, smrt, razkrajanje) Drugo triletje – Naravoslovje in tehnika Tematski sklop Razred Vsebine Clovek 5. Zdrava prehrana Izvor in pridelava hrane Živa bitja 4. Rastline s cvetovi in brez cvetov Drevesne in grmovne vrste v ožjem okolju 5. V rastlinah nastaja hrana Lahko ga uporabimo kot (geografsko) raziskovalno ucilnico (Levart, 2018), saj omogoca lažje razumevanje naravno-geografskih vsebin, lokalnega okolja ter pridobivanje okoljskih vrednot. Pouk v vrtu je prakticno, raziskovalno in/ali medpredmetno zasnovan. Pri tem je kljucna prakticna izkušnja v naravi, ki ima svojo nenadomestljivo doživljajsko vrednost in celovito cutno in custveno prevzame ucence in dijake (Vovk Korže, 2011). Vkljucujemo ga lahko v obravnavo življenjskih prostorov (Rajšp idr. 2013) in omogoca raziskovalni pristop k poucevanju od vrtca do šole pri vseh naravoslovnih predmetih in predmetih povezanih z naravoslovjem (Petek, 2012). Zagotovo je lahko vkljucen v predmet Gospodinjstvo v 5. in 6. razredu osnovne šole, ki v svojih tematskih sklopih v ucnem nacrtu ne predvideva vsebin, povezanih s pridelavo hrane in uporabo pridelkov z vrta. Pri tem bi lahko ucenci dosegali dva cilja. Prvi bi vkljuceval urejanje vrta za pridelavo hrane, drugi pa uporabo in predelavo pridelkov z vrta, ki bi jih otroci lahko na koncu pojedli in se na ta nacin naucili spremljati celotno verigo pridelave hrane od proizvajalca do porabnika. S takim nacrtovanjem šolskega vrta bi se lahko izognili omejitvam HACCP, nujnim in obvezujocim nacinom dela v šolski kuhinji, ne pa tudi obvezujocim za pripravo hrane v ucilnici za gospodinjstvo. Otroci bi si lahko sami pridelali in pripravili hrano iz samostojno pridelane zelenjave in sadja v ucilnici za gospodinjstvo. Zato predlagamo, da se v naslednji prenovi ucnega nacrta upoštevajo tudi teme, ki so povezane s samo pridelavo in uporabo tako pridelane hrane in ne samo zgolj pripravo hrane. Ce šola nima šolskega vrta, bi lahko ta del pouka potekal v eni od ustanov, ki urejajo tovrstne vrtove. Ena takih ustanov je Botanicni vrt Pivola Univerze v Mariboru, ki ima poleg zelišcnega vrta urejen tudi sadno-zelenjavni vrt. Botanicni vrt Pivola že sedaj ponuja dejavnosti, vezane na zelenjavno-sadni in zelišcni vrt. Druga se nahaja v naselju Modraže med Poljcanami in Slovensko Bistrico. Ucni poligon za samooskrbo Dole (Vovk Korže, 2015) je urejen po metodah permakulture (Vovk Korže & Kokot Krajnc, 2013) in ponuja dejavnosti, povezane z vrtnarjenjem, ter ga lahko obiskujejo tudi ljubitelji vrtnarjenja in okoliško prebivalstvo. Ureditev šolskega vrta oziroma dejavnosti, povezane s šolskim vrtom, bi bilo treba nujno vkljuciti v ucne nacrte omenjenih naravoslovnih predmetov. Zagotoviti bi bilo treba trajno in kontinuirano spodbujanje, smernice, nacrte izvedbe projektov ureditve in vzdrževanja šolskih vrtov in v to vkljuciti Ministrstvo za izobraževanje, znanost in šport, samostojno ali v sodelovanju z Ministrstvom za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano ter zagotoviti ustrezno financiranje. Zaradi premajhnega vrednotenja pedagoškega dela na šolskem vrtu je v realnosti odlocitev za ureditev šolskega vrta samo rezultat dobre volje vodstva in interesa uciteljev, zato takšnim šolam namenjamo vso pohvalo. Zakljucki Polovica (19 izmed 38) osnovnih šol v Pomurju ima šolski vrt. Odlocitev za šolski vrt je prepušcena dobri volji vodstva in interesu uciteljev, pri cemer gre za prostovoljno delo uciteljev. V preteklosti je imelo šolske vrtove vec šol, kot jih ima danes. Kot najpogostejši razlog za nedelovanje šole navajajo pomanjkanje prostora. Najpogostejša vrsta šolskega vrta je ekološki, sledi okrasni šolski vrt. V vecini intervjuvanih pomurskih osnovnih šol so za šolske vrtove odgovorni ucitelji razrednega pouka. Najpogosteje so vkljucene v projektih in programih Ekošola in Zdrava šola. Z raziskovanjem šolskih vrtov smo želeli pohvaliti tiste, ki se s tem že ukvarjajo, ter spodbuditi ostale, da se jim prikljucijo. Šolski vrt bi bilo nujno vkljuciti v ucne nacrte naravoslovnih predmetov ter pripraviti smernice za delo na šolskem vrtu. Zahvala Raziskavo je sofinanciralo Ministrstvo za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo znotraj raziskovalnega programa »Raziskave za zagotavljanje varne hrane in zdravja«, P1-0164, ki poteka na Fakulteti za kmetijstvo in biosistemske vede Univerze v Mariboru pod vodstvom D. Škorjanca. Iskrena hvala šolam, ki so bile pripravljene sodelovati v raziskavi! Summary School-based learning has a rich tradition in Slovenia and is now a globally recognized movement. School gardening and related learning have an impact on raising children and on young people’s awareness of the importance of plants, animals, sustainable food production and consumption, and agrobiodiversity. Whether it takes place in the classroom or outdoors, it involves learning about the life cycle of living things and the cyclical rhythms of nature. At the same time, it strengthens interactions between children, youth, and adults. In our article we present the activities of school gardens in the flattest and most agricultural region of Slovenia - the Pomurje region - and their involvement in the pedagogical process of natural science subjects. The survey was conducted in two separate parts, using two questionnaires. The first part was conducted with an online questionnaire, in which 38 Pomurje primary schools participated, and the second part was conducted in the form of a semi-structured interview with a sample of 9 Pomurje primary schools. Only half, 19 of the 38 Pomurje primary schools that participated in the online survey, had a school garden. More than half of the small schools (with 199 pupils or less) and less than half of the large schools (with 200 to 600 pupils) had a school garden. The reasons most frequently cited by respondents, that prevented half the schools from having a garden, were lack of space, lack of funding, lack of interest on the part of the school, and teacher overload. In addition to the above reasons, other individual reasons given by respondents included finding a suitable teacher, legal restrictions, strict requirements, and stringent criteria for preparing safe food, HACCP. Nine schools were willing to share their experiences with their school gardens and show them to us. In most cases, the garden was created as an organic, ornamental, or natural garden, usually close to the school. The garden was included in educational and non-educational activities, most often in the first and second three years, less often in the third three years. In regular classes, it was most often included in learning about the environment, science and technology, and home economics. They used it for observation activities, for practical work or for cross-curricular links. In most cases, class teachers were responsible for the school garden. Medical herbs and vegetables were grown in the garden, but less so trees, shrubs or flowering plants. Seeds and seedlings were obtained in various ways, either by purchase or by getting them from teachers, parents, or children. Respondents often mention the involvement of the local community, the involvement of local farmers, fruit growers, gardeners, and community workers. They state that the use of crops in the school kitchen is limited by absence during summer holidays, legislation, and strict HACCP criteria. The decision to have a school garden depends on the good will of the school management and the interest of the teachers, and it represents voluntary work by the teachers. The management of the garden depends on the orientations, wishes, space, material, and financial possibilities of the school. Of great help for schools are projects and programs that allow a gradual introduction of gardening and provide experience and assistance in organizing, establishing, and maintaining a school garden. The establishment of the school garden or activities related to the school garden should be included in the curricula of the particular science subjects. Ongoing and continuous support, guidelines, plans for implementation of school garden establishment and maintenance projects should be made available, and adequate funding should be provided. If a school does not have a school garden, this part of the teaching could take place in one of the institutions that establish such gardens. One such institution is the Pivola Botanical Garden of the University of Maribor, which has both a herb garden and a fruit and vegetable garden. Horticultural activities contribute in the long run to the development of agricultural and farming activities and thus to the development of this important agricultural region. At the same time, the school garden contributes much to the sustainable development of the social community in an informal way and has a positive influence on attitudes towards the environment. Literatura Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley. Bela knjiga o VIZ v RS (2011). Retrieved from http://pefprints.pef.uni-lj.si/1195/1/bela_kn–jiga_2011.pdf (Accessed: 10th September 2019). Burdiak, V. (2010). Influence of ethnic stereotype on the development of political relations in the Balkans. Codrual Cosminului, 16(2), pp. 147–157. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. Cunder, T. (2009). Kmetijstvo v Pomurju danes in jutri. V T. Kikec (Ur.), Pomurje: Trajnostni regionalni razvoj ob reki Muri (str. 143–156). Ljubljana: Zveza geografov Slovenije, Murska Sobota, Društvo geografov Pomurja. Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2008). Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Education Research, 23, 952–962. Getting Started: A Guide for Creating School Gardens as Outdoor Classrooms. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/sites/default/files/uploads/getting-started-2009.pdf (Accessed: 24th July 2020). Kolar, M., Krnel, D, Velkavrh, A. (2011). Ucni nacrt: Program osnovna šola. Spoznavanje okolja. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo RS za šolstvo in šport, Zavod RS za šolstvo. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice 41, 212–218. Kühnis J., & Fahrni D. (2021). Forgotten Nature? Experiences with and Knowledge of Nature Among Schoolchildren: A Pilot Study in Central Switzerland. Journal of Elementary Education, 14(1), 1–10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.1.1-10.2021 (Accessed: 23th July 2020). Levart, N. (2018). Šolski vrt kot raziskovalna ucilnica. Doktorska disertacija, Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta. Ozer, E. J. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: Conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education & Behavior, 34(6), 846–863. Petek. D. (2012) Zgodnje ucenje in poucevanje naravoslovja z raziskovalnim pristopom. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje 5(4), 101–114. Priporocilo Evropskega parlamenta in Evropskega Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2006 o kljucnih kompetencah za vseživljenjsko izobraževanje (2006). Pridobljeno z http://eur-lex.europa.e– u/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:sl:PDF ali http://www.kult–urnibazar.si/data/upload/Priporocilo.pdf (Dostopno 24. 10. 2019.) Pogacnik, M., Žnidarcic, D., & Strgar, J. (2012). Use of school gardens in elementary schools in Slovenia. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 10, 1196–1199. Pogacnik, M., Žnidarcic, D., & Strgar, J. (2012). Šolski vrt kot didakticni pripomocek za izobraževanje srednješolcev = School garden as a didactic tool in secondary education. In Prenos inovacij, znanj in izkušenj v vsakdanjo rabo : zbornik izvleckov (str. 96–97). Biotehniški center. Rajšp, M., Pintaric, N., & Fošnaric, S. (2013) Nacrtovanje in izvajanje obravnave življenjskih prostorov v naravi. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje 6 (4), 87-103. Regije v številkah - Statisticni portret slovenskih regij 2016. (2016). Pridobljeno z iz http://www.sta–t.si/dokument/8941/regije-v-stevilkah.pdf (Dostopno 20. 11. 2017.) Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. WM., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R. E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L. H., & Udry, J. R., (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Jama, 278(10), 823–832. Ribaric, M. (2014). Ucilnica v naravi: šolski vrt vceraj, danes, jutri, (Razstavni katalog / Slovenski šolski muzej; 126). Slovenski šolski muzej: Ljubljana. Sankovic, M., Krapec, D., Potocnik Magdic, S., Svetec, M., Gönc, F., Varga, R., & Ulcar, D. (2015). Regionalni razvojni program Pomurja 2014–2020. Pridobljeno z https://www.sveti-jurij.si/Datoteke/UpravljalecDatotek/125/O%20ob%C4%8Dini/Razvojni%20dokumenti/RRP%20Pomurje%202004%202020/RRP%202014-2020_1.0_maj%2015%20FINAL-1.pdf (Dostopno 20. 11. 2017.) Sinonimni slovar slovenskega jezika (2018). Spletna izdaja 2018. Pridobljeno z https://www.fra–n.si/iskanje?View=1&Query=vrt (Dostopno 20. 11. 2018.) Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, druga, dopolnjena in deloma prenovljena izdaja (2014). Spletna izdaja 2014. Pridobljeno z https://www.fran.si/iskanje?View=1&Query=vrt (Dostopno 20. 11. 2017.) Šebenik, U. (2015). Ekovrt v vsak vrtec in šolo? Da, s programom Šolski ekovrtovi! Šolska kronika, 3, 530–534. Škof, J. (2013). Šolski vrt – korak k samooskrbi. Ljubljana: samozaložba. Šolska vrtilnica, Ekošola. (b. d.). Pridobljeno z https://ekosola.si/pf/solska-vrtilnica2018-2019/ (Dostopno 20. 11. 2019.) Šolski ekovrt. (b. d.). Pridobljeno z http://www.solskiekovrt.si/ (Dostopno 20. 11. 2019.) Šuklje Erjavec, I. (2012). Pomen in možnosti uporabe zunanjega prostora šol v vzgojno-izobraževalnem procesu. Sodobna pedagogika, 63 (1), 156–174. Urbanisticni terminološki slovar (2016). spletna izdaja 2016. Pridobljeno z https://fran.si/isk–anje?View=1&Query=%C5%A1olski+vrt (Dostopno 20. 11. 2019.) Vodopivec, I., Papotnik, A., Gostincar Blagotinšek, A., Skribe Dimec, D., & Balon, A. (2011). Ucni nacrt: Program osnovna šola. Naravoslovje in tehnika. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, Zavod RS za šolstvo. Vovk Korže, A. (2011): Ucilnica v naravi -tudi v Sloveniji izkustveno izobraževanje za trajnostni razvoj. Didakta, 21(148). 54–56. Vovk Korže, A., & Kokot Krajnc, M. (2013): Šolski permakulturni vrt je inovativna ucilnica v naravi. Trajnostni razvoj v šoli in vrtcu: revija za globalne dimenzije kurikula, 7(1/2). 38–41. Vovk Korže, A. (2015). Naravni vrt: prirocnik za izdelavo in nadgradnjo vrta. Nazarje: GEAart. Turk, L., Slabe, A., & Fabjan, J. (2018). Kompostiranje za šole, vrtce in gospodinjstva. Inštitut za trajnostni razvoj. Pridobljeno z http://www.itr.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Komp–ostiranje-gradivo-koncna.pdf (Dostopno 2. 11. 2020.) Authors Dr. Jana Ambrožic-Dolinšek Associate professor, University of Maribor, Faculty of Education and Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: jana.ambrozic@um.si Izredna profesorica, Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta in Fakulteta za naravoslovje in matematiko, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-pošta: jana.ambrozic@um.si Dane Katalinic University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: dane.katalinic@gmail.com Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-pošta: dane.katalinic@gmail.com Patricija Utroša Osnovna šola Franceta Prešerna Crenšovci, Ulica Juša Kramarja 10, Slovenija, e-pošta: patricija.utrosa@gmail.com Elementary school France Prešern Crenšovci, Ulica Juša Kramarja 10, Slovenia, e-mail: patricija.utrosa@gmail.com THE RELATION BETWEEN INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY AND WORLD MUSIC PREFERENCES AMONG GRAMMAR SCHOOL AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL STUDENTS Potrjeno/Accepted 17. 4. 2021 Objavljeno/Published 30. 9. 2001 DANIELA PETRUŠIC & TONKA ŠEŠELJ Univeristiy of Split, Faculty of Philosophy, Split, Croatia KORESPONDENCNI AVTOR/CORRESPONDING AUTHOR dpetrusic@ffst.hr Keywords: music pedagogy, intercultural sensitivity, musical preferences, world music, music education Kljucne besede: glasbena pedagogika, medkulturna obcutljivost, glasbene preference, svetovna glasba, glasbena vzgoja UDK/UDC 373.5:316.7:78 Abstract/Izvlecek The paper explores the influence of the type of secondary education chosen by the participants on the level of intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences, as well as the connection between intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences. The research employed a general data questionnaire, the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale and an assessment scale to examine music fragment preferences in a sample of 124 participants. The results have significant implications for music and pedagogical theory and practice, in terms of increasing intercultural sensitivity and the tolerance of students towards members of other cultures and their music. Povezava med medkulturno obcutljivostjo in svetovnimi glasbenimi preferencami med gimnazijami in poklicnimi šolami Prispevek raziskuje vpliv vrste srednješolskega izobraževanja, ki so ga izbrali udeleženci, na raven medkulturne obcutljivosti in svetovnih glasbenih preferenc ter povezave med medkulturno obcutljivostjo in svetovnimi glasbenimi preferencami. V raziskavi je bil uporabljen splošni podatkovni vprašalnik, Lestvica medkulturne obcutljivosti in ocenjevalna lestvica za preucevanje preferenc glasbenih fragmentov na vzorcu 124 udeležencev. Pridobljeni rezultati pomembno vplivajo na glasbeno in pedagoško teorijo in prakso v smislu povecanja medkulturne obcutljivosti in strpnosti študentov do glasbe in pripadnikov drugih kultur. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.317-331.2021 Besedilo / Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobcitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Introduction Music is an integral part of culture, and as an artistic activity, plays a key role in the quality, harmonious and complete development of each individual. Culture as a way of life is learned and acquired and can be defined as a set of human beliefs, customs, attitudes and traditions in a particular territory (Mesic, 2007). Music education in school institutions is of great importance and has a multiple role for the social community and culture, in achieving the basic educational values and general educational goals. Through music education, students become competent users of culture who actively participate in the musical life of their environment and thus contribute to the preservation, transmission, renewal, and spread of cultural heritage (Curriculum of Music Education for Primary Schools and for Grammar Schools, 2019). Having a diversity of cultures interact in a particular space is called multiculturalism. In Music education classes, students become familiar with multicultural music content through music of varied origins and different styles and types; they adopt the basic elements of the language of music to acquire knowledge about and competence in cultural differences and in this way contribute to the progress of society. Today's society abounds with differences, and very often there is contact between two or more cultures, mutually different nationalities, religions, and languages. The relationship of these differing cultures, their exchange, and the set of differences in their dynamic flow in society, along with their mutual interaction, lead to the notion of interculturalism (Peko, Mlinarevic & Jindra, 2009). In the 21st century, intercultural music education is becoming an increasing challenge for music teachers. The development of digital technology makes music from all parts of the world available and requires teachers to professionally develop intercultural competences. This is extremely important so as to allow quality transmission of intercultural content to students through modern teaching methods, given that traditional classes cannot cover all cultural and technological changes in society. Ways of assessing different types of music are based largely on the music-related values and beliefs of Western art music, which indicates the need to know the contexts in which music originates and occurs in order to correctly interpret and understand the social function of music (Dobrota, 2009). Intercultural education within the subject of Music education is important for the formation of students’ attitudes towards other cultures by exposing students to intercultural content thus avoiding hesitancy and negativity towards the unknown. The positive impact of intercultural education is visible in changes in educational policy and educational practice and in dialogue among different cultures, with the aim of better understanding and acceptance of, and respect for different cultures (Drandic, 2012). In everyday communication, musical preferences provide a large amount of information about an individual and help us shape impressions and make judgments about people with whom we come in contact (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). Knowing students’ musical preferences certainly helps to better interpret intercultural music content and to properly develop student’s awareness of the different ways in which we perceive and think about music. Intercultural music education Music education covers the music of all cultures; therefore, in this field of education, the intercultural competences of students should be developed. Intercultural music education is an indispensable part of teaching music, covering the activities of singing, playing, listening to music, and composing, to be carried out during the classes of Music education. In the 1920s, intercultural music education began to develop in American schools, because of changes in demographic structures as a result of a large number of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. At that time, American schools began to introduce folk songs and dances from almost all northern European and Central European cultures, several AfricanAmerican and Indian songs, some songs from Eastern and Southern Europe, and from East Asia. The inclusion of folk songs in the curriculum was a significant step in affirming intercultural music education. Two symposia were of great importance for the development of intercultural music education. The first symposium of the Yale Seminar was held in 1963, addressing the issue of music education and offering recommendations for solving the problems faced in music education. At the end of the symposium, a conclusion was reached on the need and potential for including the music of all periods from Western art music, authentic non-Western folk music, and jazz in music education at all levels (Palisca, 1964). A few years later, in 1967, at the Tanglewood symposium the role of music in the social education system was evaluated, and a declaration was issued on the importance of education for the development of an individual's creativity and building her/his identity. Here the contribution of musicis significant. As an integral part of education and as a field of art, it has a major influence on a person’s social, psychological, and physiological needs in the lifelong search for one’s identity and self-realization. The conclusion of this Symposium is extremely important for intercultural music education, as it states that the music of all periods, styles, forms, and cultures belongs in the curriculum and that the music repertoire should be expanded to popular teenage and avant-garde music, American folk music, and music of other cultures (Choate, 1967). The 1990s saw a declinein the quality of education owing to numerous economic restrictions in society, which also affected education. Therefore, in 1994, standards for dance, music, theatre, and visual arts were adopted under the name National Standards for Arts Education (1994). In the nineties, numerous articles were published that presented the music cultures of various nations with instructions to music teachers for their use in teaching. One of the greatest values of these publications was the contribution to raising the awareness of music teachers about the importance of observing music from a global perspective (Kraus, 1966). The goal of intercultural music education is to develop students’ sensitivity, understanding, and respect for cultures that are different from their own (Dobrota, 2012). In order for children to acquire intercultural competence, it is necessary to offer teachers intercultural training and education. Chen & Starosta (1996, 2000) developed a model of intercultural communication competences that encourages interactive opportunities such as respect, acceptance, recognition, tolerance, and integration of cultural differences. This model of intercultural communication competences comprises three inextricably linked dimensions: intercultural efficiency, intercultural awareness, and intercultural sensitivity. All three together contribute significantly to establishing more effective communication, especially in culturally diverse societies (Portalla & Chen, 2010). Chen & Starosta list six key determinants of an interculturally sensitive person: self-esteem, self-monitoring, open-mindedness, empathy, interaction involvement, and non-judgment. These six determinants significantly contributed to the creation of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS), developed by Chen & Starosta (2000). The scale consists of twenty-four statements that examine five factors of intercultural sensitivity: respect for cultural differences, interaction involvement, interaction security, interaction enjoyment, and interaction attention. Based on the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, Portalla & Chen (2010) developed the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES), based on twenty questions and measuring six factors: interaction respect, behavioural flexibility, interaction relaxation, interaction management, messaging skills and identity retention. Given that intercultural efficiency is only one of the three dimensions of intercultural communication competence, there is still much room for future research on the relation between intercultural efficiency, intercultural sensitivity, and intercultural awareness (Portalla & Chen, 2010). Musical preferences The term preferences (Latin praeferre - to lead, give preference, appreciate more, like more) is often used in musical terminology when describing attitudes towards a certain type of music and defining musical taste. The term taste here covers long-term behaviour in the form of aesthetic evaluation as the totality of all preferences of an individual, while individual preferences are seen as an expression of short-term liking (Mirkovic Radoš, 2010). Factors influencing musical preferences are numerous and can be classified into several groups: cognitive factors, emotional factors, physiological arousal, cultural and social factors, music repetition and familiarity, music characteristics, and listener characteristics. Cognitive factors relate to the instrumental use of music and describe the relation between an individual’s needs, beliefs, personality, and her/his choice of music. According to researchers, the cognitive functions of listening to music are classified into communication (expressing one’s own values, receiving information or contacting others) and self-reflection (Arnett, 1995; Larson, 1995; as cited in Dobrota & Reic Ercegovac, 2016). Emotional factors are extremely important because a person listens to music precisely to revive and awaken her/his own emotions, express them, and maintain good mood (Juslin & Laukka, 2004; Larson, 1995; as cited in Dobrota & Reic Ercegovac, 2016). Physiological arousal is for the most part considered pleasant. While listening to music, physical experiences can be demonstrated by measurable variables such as changes in heart rate or blood pressure, but also by additional subjective experiences (Craig, 2005; Krumhansl, 1997; as cited in Dobrota & Reic Ercegovac, 2016). Cultural and social factors influence the development of musical preferences by allowing an individual to express her/his personality, identity, or culture through music, as well as to understand these in other people (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). Repetition and familiarity of music have a positive linear relationship with musical preferences, because getting to know a certain composition affects the formation of a positive attitude towards the piece (Dobrota, 2016). The characteristics of music are a factor that actually builds musical preferences, and their importance lies in assessing a piece of music through elements of tempo, rhythm, pitch, harmony, and dynamics. In a composition, moderate volume and tempo are preferred, as well as the optimal level of complexity and a medium level of familiarity (Dobrota & Reic Ercegovac, 2016). Listener characteristics are the factor that scholars have most often explored when studying musical preferences. Listener characteristics include age, gender, personality, and musical experience (Dobrota, 2016). A milestone in the research of musical preferences was the study by Rentfrow & Gosling (2003), who explored the influence of personality traits on musical preferences, using a measurement instrument called the Short Test of Music Preferences (STOMP). A factor analysis of the results revealed four factors that coincide with different personality traits: reflexive and complex (jazz, blues, classical and folk music); intense and rebellious (rock, heavy metal and alternative music); upbeat and conventional (religious, pop and film music); and energetic and rhythmic (rap/hip-hop, soul/funk and electronic/dance music). The reflexive and complex style in the preference of introverts, and the personality traits with which it is in a positive relationship include openness to experience, self-perception of intelligence, verbal skills, and political liberalism, while it stands in a negative relationshipwith the orientation of social domination and athleticism. The intense and rebellious style is positively associated with openness to new experiences, athleticism, self-perception of intelligence, and verbal skills. The upbeat and conventional style is in a positive relationship with extraversion, comfort, conscientiousness, self-perception of physical attractiveness and athleticism, while it is negatively correlated with openness to experiences, orientation of social domination, liberalism, and verbal skills. The energetic and rhythmic style is positively correlated with extraversion, comfort, liberalism, self-perception of attractiveness, athleticism and striving for quick and emotional response, while it is negatively correlated with conservatism and orientation of social domination (Dobrota & Reic Ercegovac, 2016). The two best known theoretical models of musical preference show that preferences for a musical genre are strongly determined by an interplay of many factors. The first model is the Interactive Theory of Musical Preferences (LeBlanc, 1981), which presents a hierarchy of variables important for the formation of an individual’s musical preferences. The variables are divided into lower levels (levels 4-8) and higher levels (levels 1-3). Those on the lower levels are called impact variables, while higher-level variables represent the response to impact variables. Lower-level variables include listener characteristics such as auditory sensitivity, musical skill, music instruction, personality, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, the listener’s affective state, physiological conditions, and cultural factors such as media, peers, family, and education. Variables at higher levels include accepting or rejecting information, exploring stimuli and/or the environment, repeated listening, increased attention and awareness, processing in the listener’s brain, deciding on preferences, etc. (Dobrota & Maslov, 2015). Another model of musical preferences is the Reciprocal Feedback Model of Musical Response (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2005), in which the authors attempted to group different factors (age, gender, personality, music education, musical ability, socioeconomic status, environment, and media) into three groups affecting musical preferences: music, listener, and the situation in which the listener finds herself/himself. The model is called reciprocal because each of the three basic factors can simultaneously affect the other two, and their influences are two-way (North & Hargreaves, 2008). Both models can serve as a starting point in the study of musical preferences. Yet there are drawbacks, as they do not provide an answer to the question why people prefer certain musical styles, or why they listen to music at all (Dobrota & Maslov, 2015). In this paper, we will explore the relation between intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences in grammar and vocational school students, taking into account previous research. The research: The relation between intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences Research objective, problems, and hypotheses The research objective is to explore how the participants’ type of secondary education influences the level of intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences, as well as to analyse the connection between intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences. In accordance with the above objectives, the following research problems were defined: 1. to examine whether the participants’ type of secondary education influences the level of their intercultural sensitivity. 2. to examine whether the participants’ type of secondary education influences the world music preferences. 3. to examine whether there is a connection between intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences. 4. to examine whether there is a connection between music familiarity and preferences for music fragments. Based on the defined research objectives and problems, the following hypotheses were developed: H1: Students attending the final years of grammar schools show a higher level of intercultural sensitivity compared to their peers in vocational schools. H2: Students attending the final years of grammar schoolsshow greater world music preferences compared to their peers in vocational schools. H3: Participants who show a higher level of intercultural sensitivity also show greater world music preferences. H4: Participants show greater preference for familiar music fragments. Research method Participants The study was conducted in Split on a sample of 124 participants (F = 86, M = 38) including fourth-year students attending the First Grammar School with the Language Program (N = 62) and fourth-year students attending the School of Fine Arts (N = 62) (Table 1). Table 1. The sample structure (N = 124) GENDER N SCHOOL TYPE N M 38 grammar school students 62 F 86 vocationalschool students 62 Total 124 5.00 The research instrument and procedure For this study, a three-part questionnaire was constructed. The first part contains questions related to the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants (gender and type of school). The second part of the questionnaire is the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (Chen & Starosta, 1996; 2000), which contains 24 statements. Each statement is accompanied by a rating scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Chen & Starosta (1996; 2000) obtained five factors of intercultural sensitivity: trust (statements 3, 4, 5, 6, 10), enjoyment (statements 9, 12, 15), respect (statements 2, 7, 8, 16, 18, 20), engagement (statements 1, 11, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24) and attention (statements 14, 17, 19). The psychometric characteristics of the scale are shown in Table 2. Since the distribution of the total results does not differ significantly from the normal distribution, the procedures of parametric statistics will be applied in further analyses. Table 2. The psychometric characteristics of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Statement no. Statement 1. I enjoy interacting with people from other cultures. 2. I think people from other cultures are narrow-minded. 3. I am quite self-confident when interacting with people from other cultures. 4. I find it very difficult to speak in front of people from other cultures. I always know what to say when interacting with people from other cultures. 5. 6. When interacting with people from other cultures, I can be as friendly as I want to be. 7. I do not like being with people from other cultures. 8. I respect the values of people from other cultures. 9. I get upset easily when interacting with people from other cultures. I feel safe when interacting with people from other cultures. 10. 11. I do not usually form an opinion at first glance about interlocutors from other cultures. 12. I often become discouraged when I am with people from other cultures. 13. I approach people from other cultures without prejudice. I am very considerate in interacting with people from other cultures. 14. 15. I often feel useless when interacting with people from other cultures. 16. I respect the ways people from other cultures behave. 17. I try to get as much information as possible from interaction with people from other cultures. 18. I would not accept the opinion of people from other cultures. I am sensitive to unclear meanings in interaction with a person from another culture. 19. 20. I think my culture is better than other cultures. 21. I often give safe answers in interaction with a person from another culture. 22. I avoid situations where I will have to deal with people from other cultures. I often show my understanding using verbal or non-verbal signs to an interlocutor from another culture. 23. 24. I enjoy the differences between me and my interlocutor from another culture. Cronbach a 0.86 M (sd) 95.05 (11.21) Range 64-116 0.21 Average r amongparticles K-S d 0.07, p>0.05 For the purposes of the research, a CD was made consisting of 15 fragments of world music, each lasting 30 seconds. The musical preferences questionnaire, constructed for the purposes of this research, consists of 15 rating scales ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = I do not like it at all, 5 = I really like it), and next to each rating scale there is a number referring to the music fragment. The psychometric characteristics of the scale are shown in Table 3. Since the distribution of the total results does not differ significantly from the normal distribution, the procedures of parametric statistics will be applied in further analyses. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, taking place in groups, during regular classes. Table 3. Psychometric characteristics of the Musical Preferences Questionnaire Music fragment no. Music fragment 1. AyubOgada (Kenya): Kothbiro 2. Ernest Ranglin (Jamaica): Below the Bassline Cafe' Tacuba (Mexico): Esanoche 3. 4. Los tradicionales de Carlos Puebla (Cuba): Dilema 5. Juan Carlos Urena (Costa Rica): Este Son 6. Julian Avalos (Peru): Guajira Bonita 7. Hawaii – Aloha oe 8. Irish tavern music 9. Makedonsko devojce 10. Ricardo Lemvo & Makin Loca (Congo): La Milonga de Ricardo en Cha-cha-cha 11. Claudia Gomez (Colombia): Soltarlo 12. Susana Baca (Peru): Maria Lando 13. Thomas Mapfumo (Zimbabwe): Hanzvadzi 14. Samite (Uganda): Wasuze Otya 15. Zorba – Sirtaki (traditional Greek music) Cronbach a 0.82 M (sd) 51.96 (8.43) range 35-70 average r among particles 0.24 K-S d 0.07, p>0.05 Table 4 shows the average degree of music fragment preferences. The participants rated the composition Zorba - Sirtaki (traditional Greek music) with the highest marks, and the composition Claudia Gomez (Colombia): Soltarlo with the lowest marks. Table 4. The average degree of music fragment preferences Music sample M min. max. SD Ayub Ogada (Kenya): Kothbiro 3.19 1.00 1.11 Ernest Ranglin (Jamaica): Below the Bassline 3.68 1.00 5.00 1.09 Cafe' Tacuba (Mexico): Esanoche 3.98 1.00 5.00 0.99 Los tradicionales de Carlos Puebla (Cuba): Dilema 3.43 1.00 5.00 1.25 Juan Carlos Urena (Costa Rica): Este Son 3.54 1.00 5.00 1.02 Julian Avalos (Peru): Guajira Bonita 3.60 1.00 5.00 1.09 Hawaii – Aloha oe 3.65 1.00 5.00 1.21 Irish tavern music 3.44 1.00 5.00 1.11 Makedonsko devojce 3.81 1.00 5.00 0.90 Ricardo Lemvo & Makin Loca (Congo): La Milonga de Ricardo en Cha-cha-cha 3.81 2.00 5.00 0.98 Claudia Gomez (Colombia): Soltarlo 2.21 1.00 5.00 1.05 Susana Baca (Peru): Maria Lando 3.22 1.00 5.00 1.13 Thomas Mapfumo (Zimbabwe): Hanzvadzi 2.81 1.00 5.00 1.04 Samite (Uganda): Wasuze Otya 3.21 1.00 5.00 0.97 Zorba – Sirtaki (traditional Greek music) 4.39 1.00 5.00 0.90 Results and discussion H1: Students attending the final year of grammar schools show a higher level of intercultural sensitivity compared to their peers in vocational schools. To analyse the impact of the type of secondary education on the level of intercultural sensitivity of the participants, a t-test was calculated. The results confirm the existence of a significant difference in the level of intercultural sensitivity among grammar and vocational school students, with vocational school students showing a higher level of intercultural sensitivity (Table 5). This led us to reject the first hypothesis. From the second year, students attending the School of Fine Arts in Split can choose one of the following professions: graphic design, sculpture design, photo design, painting design, industrial design, or clothing design. It is possible that it was the education factor that influenced the shaping of their intercultural sensitivity. In addition, the results of numerous studies confirm that openness to new experiences, as one of the personality traits from the Five Factor Model, is a significant predictor of preferences for different types of art, including the fine arts (Feist & Brady, 2004). Table 5. The differences in intercultural sensitivity with regard to school type M Grammar school students M Vocational school students t df p Level of intercultural sensitivity 3.88 4.05 2.04 122 0.04 H2: Students attending the final year of grammar schools show greater world music preferences compared to their peers in vocational schools. To examine the impact of the type of high school education on world music preferences, the t-test was recalculated (Table 6). The results indicate an absence of differences between grammar school students and vocational school students, thus rejecting the set hypothesis. Dobrota & Reic Ercegovac (2014) point out that music education and personality traits are significant predictors of musical preferences. Howard (2018) emphasizes the significant role of well-designed music classes, which can shape children’s understanding of historical, cultural and democratic processes, i.e., the socio-cultural context in which world music is created and performed. Kim & Yoon (2016) also point out that teaching music positively influences student attitudes towards world music. In this study, both grammar school and vocational school students had been attending Music education classes for four or two years. It is possible that those classes had a positive impact on both groups of participants in terms of increasing world musicpreferences. Table 6. The differences in world music preferences with respect to the type of secondary education M Grammar school students M Vocational school students t df P World music preferences 3.39 3.52 1.33 121 0.19 H3: Participants who show a higher level of intercultural sensitivity also show greater world music preferences. To examine the relation between the level of intercultural sensitivity and world music preferences, we calculated a correlation between the overall result for intercultural sensitivity and the overall result of musical preferences. The obtained correlation value is significant and amounts to 0.20 (p <0.05), which confirms the hypothesis. The results are consistent with the research of Dobrota (2016), who examined the relation between students’ intercultural attitudes and their world music preferences. The results confirm the connection between some aspects of intercultural attitudes and world music preferences. Choi (2010) and Fung (1994) also note that world music preferences are positively correlated with participants’ intercultural attitudes. H4: Participants show greater preference for familiar music fragments. Table 7. The relation between music familiarity and world music preferences Music sample Correlation between familiarity with the music sample and world music preferences Ayub Ogada (Kenya): Kothbiro 0.20* Ernest Ranglin (Jamaica): Below the Bassline 0.11 Cafe' Tacuba (Mexico): Esanoche 0.37* Los tradicionales de Carlos Puebla (Cuba): Dilema 0.15 Juan Carlos Urena (Costa Rica): Este Son 0.23* Julian Avalos (Peru): Guajira Bonita 0.24* Hawaii – Aloha oe 0.45* Irish tavern music 0.16 Makedonsko devojce 0.25* Ricardo Lemvo& Makin Loca (Congo): La Milonga de Ricardo en Cha-cha-cha 0.13 Claudia Gomez (Colombia): Soltarlo 0.34* Susana Baca (Peru): Maria Lando 0.25* Thomas Mapfumo (Zimbabwe): Hanzvadzi 0.12 Samite (Uganda): Wasuze Otya 0.13 Zorba – Sirtaki (traditional Greek music) 0.18* *p<0.05 To determine whether being familiar with the pieces of music affects the preference for music fragments, correlations between familiarity and musical preferences were calculated (Table 7). The existence of such correlations was observed for nine music samples, thus confirming the last hypothesis. The results of a number of studies (Carper, 2001; Dobrota & Sabljic, 2018; Getz, 1966; Peery & Peery, 1986) confirm the connection between musical preferences and music familiarity, because repeated exposure to music increases its understanding, and thus increases listeners’ musical preference. On a sample of primary school students attending Grades 3, 4 and 5, Siebenaler (1999) also observed a connection between familiarity with children's songs and liking them. Conclusion The beginning of the 21st century was marked by the development of digital technology, and the increasing availability of music from different parts of the world poses new challenges to music teachers in terms of teaching methods. Music education requires the integration of music belonging to other peoples. Contemporary music pedagogy suggests creating a new, dynamic, intercultural music education for the 21st century, one that expands and deepens our understanding of learning and teaching by reflecting the balance between established traditions and innovation, while listening to the needs of the community and students. Therefore, it is extremely important to start developing good interaction with and a positive attitude towards other cultures in society as early as possible. The teaching process, as well as the competences of students who participate in it, can be improved by introducing intercultural education (Topic, 2010). Accepting and studying the music of other cultures enable us to become aware of the quality of the music of our own culture (Dobrota, 2012). Creating quality communication with students from different cultures requires having a developed awareness of our own culture and being ready to accept, tolerate and respect other cultures (Bedekovic, 2015). Intercultural music education enables students to acquire new musical experiences and connect these with previous ones, which is why it is considered a particularly important part of education. It is not necessary to ask students to reject previous knowledge, but to build on the already acquired knowledge a positive attitude towards the music of different cultures and thus become more open to varied experiences and values, and reject stereotypes based on gender, age, religion, politics, nationality, and physical or mental abilities. Through cultural interaction and the diversity of musical experiences, people become richer, better educated, and more satisfied. It is music education that leads to the full realization of a person, which makes it invaluable for the musical development of an individual (Dobrota, 2012). References Bedekovic, V. (2015). Interkulturalna kompetentnost pedagoga u odgoju i obrazovanju za interkulturalne odnose. Virovitica: Visoka škola za menadžment u turizmu i informatici. Carper, K. (2001). The Effects of Repeated Exposure and Instructional Activities on the Least Preferred of Four Culturally Diverse Musical Styles with Kindergarten and Pre-k Children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 151, pp. 41–50. Chen, G. M. & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural Communication Competence: A Synthesis. In: Burleson, B. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 353383. Chen, G. M. & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The Development and Validation of the Intercultural Communication Sensitivity Scale. Human Communication, 3, pp. 1–15. Choate, R. A. (1967). Music in American Society: The MENC Tanglewood Symposium Project. Music Educators Journal. 53 (7), pp. 38–40. Choi, J. (2010). Music Major Graduate Students’ Attitudes towards Multicultural Music and its Correlation with Multicultural Music Preference. Journal of Music Education Science, 10, pp. 81–94. Curriculum of Music Education for Primary Schools and for Grammar Schools (2019). Zagreb: Narodne novine, No. 7. Dobrota, S. (2009). Interkulturalno glazbeno obrazovanje. In: Djeca i mladež u svijetu umjetnosti / Ivon, H. (ed.). Split: Centar za interdisciplinarne studije - Studia Mediterranea; Filozofski fakultet Sveucilišta u Splitu; Hrvatski pedagoško-književni zbor, Ogranak Split, pp. 157–169. Dobrota, S. (2012). Uvod u suvremenu glazbenu pedagogiju. Split: Filozofski fakultet Sveucilišta u Splitu. Dobrota, S. & Reic Ercegovac, I. (2014). Students’ Musical Preferences: The Role of Music Education, Characteristics of Music and Personality Traits. Croatian Journal of Education, 16(2), pp. 363–384. Dobrota, S. & Maslov, M. (2015). Glazbene preferencije ucenika prema narodnoj glazbi. Metodicki ogledi: casopis za filozofiju odgoja, 22(1), pp. 9–22. Dobrota, S. (2016). Povezanost izmedu interkulturalnih stavova studenata i preferencija glazbi svijeta. Život i škola: casopis za teoriju i praksu odgoja i obrazovanja, 62(1), pp. 209–218. Dobrota, S. & Reic Ercegovac, I. (2016). Zašto volimo ono što slušamo: Glazbeno-pedagoški i psihologijski aspekti glazbenih preferencija. Split: Filozofski fakultet Sveucilišta u Splitu. Dobrota, S. & Sabljic, M. (2018). Glazbene preferencije ucenika prema klasicnoj glazbi u parnim i neparnim mjerama. In: Komunikacija i interakcija umjetnosti i pedagogjje / Radocaj-Jerkovic, A. (ed.). Osijek: Sveucilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Umjetnicka akademija u Osijeku, pp. 89–100. Drandic, D. (2012). Interkulturalne kompetencije nastavnika i barijere u interkulturalnoj komunikaciji. In: Posavec, K. and Sablic, M. (eds.) Pedagogija i kultura – Interkulturalna pedagogija: prema novim razvojima znanosti u odgoju. Zagreb: Hrvatsko pedagogijsko društvo. Feist, G. J. & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art. Empirical Studies of the Arts 22(1), pp. 77–89. Fung, C. V. (1994). Undergraduate Non music Majors' World Music Preferences and Multicultural Attitudes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(1), pp. 45–57. Getz, R. (1966). The Effects of Repetition on Listening Response. Journal of Research in Music Education, 14(3), pp. 178–192. Hargreaves, D., Miell, D. & MacDonald, R. (2005). How do People Communicate Using Music? In: Miell, D.; MacDonald, R. & Hargreaves, D. (eds.), Musical Communication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–25. Howard, K. (2018). The Emergence of Children’s Multicultural Sensitivity: An Elementary School Music Culture Project. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66(3), pp. 261–277. Kim, M. & Yoon, M. (2016). Research on the Multicultural Music Education at the College Level. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(9), pp. 290–299. Kraus, E. (1966). Recommendations of the Seventh International Conference. International Music Educator. 14, pp. 452–453. LeBlanc, A. (1981). Effects of Style, Tempo, and Performing Medium on Children’s Music Preference, Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(2), pp. 143–156. Mesic, M. (2007) Pojam kulture u raspravama o interkulturalizmu. Zagreb: Odsjek za sociologiju, Filozofski fakultet. Mirkovic Radoš, K. (2010). Psihologija muzike. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike. National Standards for Arts Education (1994). Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. Reston, VA: MENC. North, A. C. & Hargreaves, D. J. (2008). The Social and Applied Psychology of Music, New York: Oxford University Press. Palisca, C. (1964). Music in Our Schools: A Search for Improvement. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Peery, J. C. & Peery, I. W. (1986). Effects of Exposure to Classical Music on the Musical Preferences of Preschool Children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, pp. 24–33. Peko, A., Mlinarevic, V. & Jindra, R. (2009). Interkulturalno obrazovanje ucitelja – Što i kako poucavati?. In: A. Peko & V. Mlinarevic (eds.), Izazovi obrazovanja u multikulturalnim sredinama. Osijek: Gradska tiskara Osijek. Portalla T. & Chen G. (2010). The Development and Validation of the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(3), pp. 21–37. Rentfrow, P.J. & Gosling, S.D. (2003). The Do Re Mi’s of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), pp. 1236– 1256. Siebenaler, D. J. (1999). Student Song Preference in the Elementary Music Class. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, pp. 213–223. Topic, I. (2010). Interkulturalizam u kurikulumu primarnog obrazovanja. Zagreb: Osnovna škola dr. Vinka Žganca u Zagrebu. Authors Daniela Petrušic, prof. Assistant, University of Split, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Early and Preschool Education, Poljicka cesta 35, 21000 Split, Croatia; e-mail: dpetrusic@ffst.hr. Asistentka, Univerza v Splitu, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za zgodnje in predšolsko vzgojo, Poljicka cesta 35, 21000 Split, Hrvaška, e-pošta: dpetrusic@ffst.hr. Tonka Šešelj, Master of Primar Education University of Split, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Early and Preschool Education, Poljicka cesta 35, 21000 Split, Croatia; e-mail: tseselj@ffst.hr. Univerza v Splitu, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za zgodnje in predšolsko vzgojo, Poljicka cesta 35, 21000 Split, Hrvaška, e-pošta: tseselj@ffst.hr. POMEN UZAVEŠCANJA NARECNEGA BESEDJA PRI UCECIH SE Potrjeno/Accepted 15. 7. 2020 Objavljeno/Published 30. 9. 2021 ALENKA VALH LOPERT Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta, Maribor, Slovenija CORRESPONDING AUTHOR/KORESPONDENCNI AVTOR alenka.valh@um.si Kljucne besede: slovenski jezik, narecje, kvalifikatorji, narecno vzhodno, glagol, Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika2, Slovenski pravopis, Gúcati po antůjoško Keywords: Slovenian language, dialect, dictionary labels, eastern dialect, verb, The Dictionary of Standard Slovenian Language2, The Slovenian Orthography, Gúcati po antůjoško UDK/UDC: 811.163.6'28'374 Izvlecek/Abstract Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika (2014, SSKJ2) uporablja sedem vrst kvalifikatorjev, od katerih je za pricujoci prispevek pomemben stilno-zvrstni kvalifikator nar. (narecno), razširjen s kvalifikatorskim pojasnilom vzhodno. V SSKJ2 je tako oznacenih 414 iztocnic, od teh bodo pregledane glagolske iztocnice, teh je 98, in primerjane z glagoli iz Rajhovega gradiva za narecni slovar Gúcati po antůjoško (2010) ter s Slovenskim pravopisom (SP 2001). Poudariti želimo pomen vkljucenosti (še) prisotnega narecnega besedja v normativne prirocnike ter pomen njihove oznacitve s kvalifikatorji za delo v šolski praksi (ucencev/dijakov/študentov in uciteljev), v medijih (lektorjev), pri prevajanju idr. The Importance of Dialect Awareness among Learners The Dictionary of Standard Slovenian Language (SSKJ 2014) uses seven types of labels (qualifiers). The present article focuses on the style-genre label nar. (dialectal), further specified as vzhodno (eastern). There are 414 entries so labelled in the SSKJ2. This survey will focus on verbs only (98), labelled as dialectal eastern in the SSKJ2, comparing them to those found in Rajh’s material for his dialectal dictionary of Prlekija dialect Gúcati po antůjoško (2010), as well as in The Slovenian Orthography (Slovenski pravopis – SP 2001). The aim is to point out the importance of incorporating the current dialectal vocabulary into the normative manuals, as well as the importance of their labelling being a great help for teachers, language editors, translators, etc. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.333-352.2021 Besedilo / Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobcitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Uvod Jezikoslovci ugotavljajo, da se odnos govorcev do neknjižnega jezika v zadnjih letih spreminja, prav tako se odpravlja negativna konotacija do neknjižnih zvrsti v razlicnih sporazumevalnih okolišcinah in govornih položajih. Znanje lokalnega govora – mnogim predstavlja neko izkaznico, odraz identitete – na eni in knjižnega na drugi strani pojmujejo kot prednost. Poudarjajo kompleksnost vpliva narecij, ki se kaže tudi v jeziku javnega nastopanja. Prav tako mediji in popularna kultura (radio, televizija, gledališce, uglasbena besedila) kot leposlovno ustvarjanje oživljajo znanje narecja, ga vrednotijo kot prednost krepitve lokalne skupnosti in regije, to pa je v pestrosti jezikov Evropske unije nadvse pomembno; hkrati pa poudarjajo znanje knjižnega jezika kot prednost za širšo komunikacijo, ki omogoca, da se govorec izogne provincializmu (Valh Lopert 2013, Valh Lopert in Koletnik 2018). Izbira jezikovne zvrsti pa je nedvomno odvisna od okolišcin, v katerih se clovek potrjuje kot družbeno bitje. Z narecjeslovnimi raziskavami v slovenskem okolju v zadnjih letih to tudi dokazujeta avtorici Pulko in Zemljak Jontes (2015) (tudi že Kenda Jež (2004), Skubic (2005), Jan (2007), Smole (2007), Zorko (2009), Zemljak Jontes in Pulko (2011), Valh Lopert (2015), Valh Lopert in Koletnik (2018) idr.), ki sta opravili pregled didakticnih vidikov poucevanja jezika v razlicnih programih izobraževanja – v ucnih nacrtih in ucbeniških gradivih za osnovno šolo in gimnazije. V analizo sta tako vkljucili skupino mladostnikov, starih od 12 do 24 let (osnovno- in srednješolce ter študente), ki v klasicnih dialektoloških študijah (naceloma) niso informatorji, in analizirali njihov odnos do neknjižnega v jeziku. V ugotovitvah izpostavljata (prav tam: 131), da se mladi ''[...] dobro zavedajo pomena izbire ustreznega, primernega izraza glede na okolišcine sporocanja in glede na govorni položaj''. O pomenu upoštevanja narecnega govora pri usvajanju knjižnega jezika v osnovni šoli je pisala že dialektologinja akademikinja Zorko (2009: 342): ''Govor je sredstvo, s katerim otrok vzpostavlja socialne stike z okoljem, torej tudi z uciteljem in sošolci v osnovni šoli. Ce prihaja iz izrazito narecno govorecega okolja, je narecje njegov materni jezik, ki se ga nauci s posnemanjem. [...] Pri uporabi in razumevanju knjižnega jezika na razredni stopnji imajo narecni otroci težave, ceprav prinesejo odprtost za komunikacijo in zgovornost že od doma. Z velikim veseljem pripovedujejo o svojih izkustvih in doživetjih vse do trenutka, ko od njih zahtevamo, da govorijo v knjižnem jeziku.'' Slovenski narecni prostor se po Logaju in Riglerju (Karta 1983, 2016; tudi Logar 1993) deli na sedem narecnih skupin (gorenjska, dolenjska, štajerska, panonska, koroška, primorska, rovtarska). Ucni nacrti za slovenski jezik tako v osnovni kot v srednji šoli obsegajo tudi spoznavanje socialnozvrstne delitve slovenskega jezika in uzavešcanje rabe knjižnih in neknjižnih razlicic tako v govoru in pisanju. Zato predstavljena analiza narecnega gradiva lahko pripomore k usvajanju narecnega od osnovne šole vse do rabe v poklicih, povezanih z raziskovanjem ali rabo narecij, kot so film, gledališce, radio ... Med knjižnimi in neknjižnimi socialnimi zvrstmi slovenskega jezika Slovenski jezik se po Toporišicu (2000: 13) deli na snope ali zvrsti: socialne, funkcijske, prenosniške, casovne ali zgodovinske in mernostne. Zanimajo nas socialne zvrsti, ki se delijo na dve nadzvrsti, na knjižni jezik (za sporazumevanje na celotnem slovenskem ozemlju in ima vsenarodnostno ter narodnoreprezentativno vlogo) in na neknjižnega. Knjižni se deli na zbornega in splošno- ali knjižnopogovornega (manj stroga oblika govorjenega knjižnega jezika); neknjižni jezik pa na t. i. zemljepisna narecja in na pokrajinske pogovorne jezike, ki so nekaka nadnarecja vec zemljepisnih narecij. Poskus drugacnega pogleda srecamo pri dialektologinji Smole (2004), ki ponuja delitev socialnih zvrsti na sistemske (knjižni jezik, narecni krajevni govor) in nesistemske (vse druge), izpostavlja pa osnovni protipol naravni (narecni krajevni govor) in normirani (knjižni) jezik, vmes pa razvršca vse druge zvrsti (prav tam: 323–324): ''S tega vidika imamo torej dve sistemski pojavni obliki slovenskega jezika: na eni strani naravni narecni (krajevni govor), na drugi normirani knjižni, na premico (in stopnice) med njima pa je mogoce uvrstiti vso množico razlicic pogovornega jezika [...].'' Avtorica dodaja (prav tam): ''[...] neposredno ob obeh sistemskih zvrsteh sem oznacila razlicke s še dopustno stopnjo odstopanja od sistema, npr. knjižno pogovorno zvrst ob zbornem jeziku in pogovorni jezik blizu krajevnemu govoru.'' Skubic (2005) predstavlja delitev na t. i. sociolekte (govorice družbenih skupin) in uvaja razlicne vloge jezika s poudarkom na jeziku kot sredstvu clovekove identifikacije. Nasprotno od dialektologije, ki deli narecja glede na geografska merila, Skubic (prav tam: 33) vpeljuje delitev na osnovi ''distribucij jezikovnih razlik v družbi'', v tem primeru izhaja iz definicije, da gre za govorce, katerih skupnosti so ''[...] majhne in geografsko locene druga od druge [...]'', zato so ''[...] govori foneticno zelo diferencirani [...]''; imenuje jih obrobni sociolekti podeželja. Dodati velja, da vendar narecna govorica ni znacilna le za ''[...] kmete, kmecko delavstvo in drugo manj izobraženo prebivalstvo podeželja [...]'', kot piše isti avtor (prav tam: 207). Mnogim namrec predstavlja narecje neko izkaznico, odraz identitete. To izkazujejo tudi analize narecja kot izraza identitete v medijih (Valh Lopert in Koletnik, 2011; Valh Lopert, 2015). zelo malo je namrec tistih, pri katerih ne zaznamo vpliva lokalnega govora, in sicer celo pri profesionalnih govorcih – profesorjih, novinarjih, javnih kulturnih delavcih. Kljub temu da mnogi govorijo o zlitju narecij s knjižnim jezikom ali celo o izginotju narecij zaradi izginjanja ruralne kulture, se kaže, da mnogi govorci ne le ohranjajo svojo jezikovno strukturo, ampak jo celo zavestno gojijo in kultivirajo, kot ugotavlja tudi Kenda Jež (2004: 263–276). Uzavešcanje o socialni zvrstnosti slovenskega jezika v ucnih nacrtih za osnovno in srednjo šolo Izpostavljamo (samo) operativne cilje iz ucnih nacrtov, ki so za prenos obravnavanega v prispevku pomembni v osnovni in srednji šoli. Ucni nacrt za osnovno šolo (dalje UN OŠ 2018) za podrocje slovenskega jezika navaja, da: 1. v prvem vzgojno-izobraževalnem obdobju (prav tam: 9–12): - Ucenci in ucenke opazujejo, primerjajo, prepoznavajo in poimenujejo oz. opisujejo: poimenovalne in izgovorne razlike med knjižnim in neknjižnim jezikom, ki ga govorijo, ter okolišcine za rabo knjižnega in neknjižnega jezika. - Ucenci in ucenke razvijajo pravorecno zmožnost: povedo, po cem se njihova neknjižna izreka loci od knjižne; med govornim nastopanjem skušajo govoriti cim bolj knjižno in razlocno; prepoznajo svojo in tujo neknjižno izreko ter besede izgovorijo knjižno. - Ucenci in ucenke razvijajo slogovno zmožnost: v svojih besedilih in v besedilih drugih prepoznavajo neustrezne (npr. neknjižne) besede in besedne zveze ter jih zamenjajo z ustreznejšimi (npr. knjižnimi) sopomenkami- Ucenci/ucenke razumejo in uporabljajo naslednje jezikoslovne izraze: knjižni in neknjižni jezik; 2. v drugem vzgojno-izobraževalnem obdobju (prav tam: 19–24): - Ucenci in ucenke opazujejo, primerjajo, prepoznavajo in poimenujejo oz. opisujejo: okolišcine za rabo knjižnega (zbornega) in neknjižnega jezika. - Ucenci in ucenke razvijajo pravorecno zmožnost: povedo, po cem se njihova neknjižna izreka loci od knjižne; med govornimi nastopi skušajo govoriti cim bolj knjižno in razlocno; prepoznajo svojo in tujo neknjižno izreko ter besede izgovorijo knjižno. - Ucenci in ucenke razvijajo slogovno zmožnost: v svojih besedilih in v besedilih drugih prepoznavajo neustrezne (npr. neknjižne) besede in besedne zveze ter jih zamenjajo z ustreznejšimi (npr. knjižnimi) sopomenkami; 3. v tretjem vzgojno-izobraževalnem obdobju (prav tam: 32–38): - Ucenci in ucenke opazujejo, primerjajo, prepoznavajo, poimenujejo oz. predstavljajo: razlocevalne lastnosti zbornega jezika, knjižnega pogovornega jezika, svojega narecja oz. pokrajinskega pogovornega jezika in najstniškega slenga ter ustrezne okolišcine za rabo teh jezikovnih zvrsti. - Ucenci in ucenke razvijajo pravorecno zmožnost: vadijo in utrjujejo knjižno izreko besed, povedi in besedil; prepoznajo svojo in tujo neknjižno izreko ter besede izgovorijo knjižno; kadar so v zadregi, si pomagajo z ustreznimi jezikovnimi prirocniki v knjižni in elektronski obliki. - Ucenci in ucenke razumejo, predstavijo, uporabljajo in ponazarjajo naslednje izraze: knjižni zborni jezik, knjižni pogovorni jezik, narecje. Ucni nacrt za srednjo šolo v gimnazijah (splošna, klasicna in strokovna) (dalje UN SŠ 2008) za podrocje slovenskega jezika navaja, da dijaki/dijakinje: - razvijajo jezikovno, slogovno in metajezikovno zmožnost v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku (prav tam: 6); - socialnozvrstna pestrost slovenskega jezika je zajeta v dikciji, da dijaki/dijakinje razvijajo razumevanje v slovenšcini v raznih okolišcinah, prepoznavajo jezikovne zvrsti in jim dolocajo ustrezne okolišcine sporocanja, uporabljajo okolišcinam ustrezne jezikovne zvrsti ter izražajo mnenje o ustreznosti jezikovnih zvrsti pri drugih govorcih (prav tam: 14);- dokaže pravorecne zmožnosti, tako da: med govornim nastopom govori knjižno; izgovori dano besedo/poved neknjižno in knjižno, primerja oba izgovora in opiše knjižni izgovor; našteje knjižne glasnike in jih primerja z neknjižnimi (iz svojega narecja/neknjižnega pogovornega jezika (prav tam: 36). Umestitev analiziranega besedja v narecno bazo Kot osnova analize nam služi stilno-zvrstni kvalifikator nar. (narecno), razširjen s kvalifikatorskim pojasnilom vzhodno, vendar terminologija tudi zgodovinsko gledano zaradi razlicnih razvojnih politicnoupravnih in geografskih delitev ter narecnih umestitev ni usklajena. O tem piše tudi Toporišic (2000: 24) in navaja: ''Zemljepisna narecja se ne skladajo zmeraj s pokrajinskimi pojmi, kot so Štajerska, Primorska, Dolenjska, Gorenjska itd. […] [T]udi Slovenske gorice so na Štajerskem, vendar njih govorica po vecjem pripada panonski narecni skupini.'' Ramovš (1935: 170) deli ''panonsko dialekticno bazo'' na ''goricanski, prleški in prekmurski dialekt'', znacilnosti vseh treh narecij pa predstavlja pod ''Severovzhodna štajerska dialekticna skupina''. Na Karti slovenskih narecij (2016) Logar in Rigler (1983) vse te dialekte imenujeta ''panonska narecna skupina''. Zorko (1994: 330) postavlja razmejitev ''vzhodno od crte Šentilj–Maribor–Zlatolicje–Polskava–Pragersko–Majšperk–Donacka gora–Macelj'', temeljec na Logarjevi delitvi iz 1983, in uvršca narecja na drugi strani te meje ''[...] v panonsko narecno skupino, ki jo sestavljajo prekmursko, goricansko, prleško in haloško narecje, vsako z vec podnarecji in govori''. Zorko poudarja tudi (2005: 777–791), da na meji med štajersko in panonsko narecno skupino prihaja do medsebojnih jezikovnih vplivov zlasti v glasovnem razvoju ter da so na obravnavane govore vplivala sticna narecja. V raziskavi ohranja še poimenovanje ''goricansko'' narecje, kot so ga poimenovali Ramovš ter Logar in Rigler. Leta 1995 je Bregant (zdaj Koletnik 2001: 38) na osnovi lastnih raziskav goricansko narecje preimenovala v slovenskogoriško narecje. Za geografsko omejitev smo kvalifikator preverili tudi v Pleteršnikovem Slovensko-nemškem slovarju (1894–1895; 2006). Najbliže našemu iskalnemu kriteriju je kvalifikator, ki vsebuje ''vzhodni'', vzhŠt., v pomenu ''vzhod/ni/ del slov/enskega/ Štajerskega, kar ga je od Maribora na vzhodno stran''. Ta glede na meje, prikazane na zemljevidu v slovarju samem, oznacuje vzhŠt. prostor do Mure (2243 zadetkov). Glede na geografsko lego Cerkvenjaka, tj. ''od Maribora na vzhodno stran'', je Rajhovo gradivo za prleški slovar Gúcati po antůjoško (2010) umešceno v panonsko narecno skupino. Prispevek se osredinja zgolj na besedje, ne prinaša pa narecnih glasovnih znacilnosti posameznih narecij znotraj panonske skupine, zato omenjamo (le) nekatere temeljne dialektološke raziskave, vezane na obravnavano tematiko Zorko (1998, 2009), Koletnik (2001, 2008, 2015), Rajh, 2002, 2011) idr. Glagoli iz Rajhovega gradiva za prleški slovar Gúcati po antůjoško in stilno-zvrstni kvalifikatorji v SSKJ2 in SP Analiza prinaša vpogled v še prisotno severozahodnoprleško narecno besedje, njegovo vkljucenost v normativne prirocnike ter pomen njihove oznacitve s kvalifikatorji. Prispevek predstavlja nadaljevanje raziskave Valh Lopert Kvalifikator narecno vzhodno v SSKJ2 (2016), v kateri smo na osnovi iskalnega kriterija nar. vzhodno (stilno-zvrstni kvalifikator nar. (narecno), razširjen s kvalifikatorskim pojasnilom vzhodno) pregledali iztocnice v drugi, dopolnjeni in deloma prenovljeni izdaji Slovarja slovenskega knjižnega jezika 2014 (dalje SSKJ2 – zapis z nadnapisano številko kot v: Perdih in Snoj, ''SSKJ2'', 2015.) Tako oznacenih iztocnic smo v SSKJ2 našli 414, od tega (najvec) 274 samostalnikov, 98 glagolov, 26 pridevnikov in 16 drugih besednih vrst (12 prislovov, po en zaimek, veznik, medmet in clenek). Kot prva je bila izvedena vzorcna primerjava pojavnosti samostalnikov nar. vzhodno iz SSKJ2 v Slovenskem pravopisu 2001 (dalje SP) in Rajhovem gradivu za narecni slovar Gúcati po antůjoško iz leta 2010 (dalje Rajh), pri cemer smo prišli do naslednjih ugotovitev: od 274 samostalniških iztocnic v SSKJ2 je 130 ženskospolskih – od tega v SP potrjenih 33, pri Rajhu 76; 127 moškospolskih – v SP 39, pri Rajhu 47; 17 srednjespolskih – v SP trije, pri Rajhu šest (prav tam). Osrednji, empiricni del prispevka predstavlja primerjava pojavnosti glagolskih iztocnic z oznako nar. vzhodno iz SSKJ2 z Rajhovim (2010) gradivom za narecni slovar severozahodnoprleškega govora in s Slovenskim pravopisom (SP 2001). Pri primerjavi smo upoštevali pomensko prekrivne (ceprav oblikoglasno razlicne) iztocnice iz Rajhovega gradiva in SSKJ2, pri cemer se zavedamo, da gre za dva sistema, v katerih so potekale spremembe, saj gre v gradivu za drugacno glasovno in/ali pisno podobo besed. V Uvodu v SSKJ2 (§ 6) beremo, da SSKJ2 ''[...] hoce pokazati, katere besede so (bile) v navedenem obdobju v jeziku žive, kako se uporabljajo oziroma kako so se uporabljale, kakšno je frekvencno razmerje med njimi in v kateri zvrsti ali stilni rabi jezika živijo''. Prav to tudi želimo s clankom poudariti, in sicer pomen vkljucenosti (še) prisotnega narecnega besedja v normativne prirocnike (v tem primeru SSKJ2 in v SP). Namrec, kvalifikatorji, rabljeni v omenjenih prirocnikih, predstavljajo zelo veliko pomoc pri delu uciteljev v razredu, prevajalcev, lektorjev v gledališcu in pri filmu ter vseh, ki se pri svojem delu srecujejo z zvrstnostjo slovenskega jezika. SSKJ2 in sistem kvalifikatorjev V drugi, dopolnjeni in deloma prenovljeni izdaji SSKJ2 je zajeto, kot je bilo do sedaj, poleg knjižnega tudi neknjižno besedje. V Uvodu v SSKJ2 (§ 2) je pojasnjeno, da so narecne besede v slovar vkljucene, ce ''[...] so mocneje zastopane v zapisanem jeziku''. Vendar (prav tam: § 5) tudi beremo, da ''[n]arecne besede, ki sicer v Pleteršnikovem slovarju so, [v SSKJ2], niso bile sprejete, ce jih splošnejša oziroma širša narecna raba ni potrdila''. Hajnšek - Holz (1997: 105–112) opozarja, ''[...] da so v SSKJ sprejete le tiste narecne besede, ki jih potrjuje današnja knjižna raba (zlasti besede, ki so jih zapisali pomembni književni ustvarjalci), ne pa vse tiste narecne besede, ki so v Pleteršnikovem slovarju''. Ob pregledu kvalifikatorjev ugotavljamo, da je bil sistem kvalifikatorjev v SSKJ2 glede na prvo izdajo SSKJ iz leta 2000 nekoliko spremenjen, ''stilno-plastni'' (SSKJ 2000, § 131–141) kvalifikatorji so bili preimenovani v ''stilno-zvrstne''. O tem pišeta tudi Perdih in Snoj (2015: str. 5–15), da so ''[m]anjše spremembe'' doživeli tudi kvalifikatorji. SSKJ2 (2014; Uvod § 96): ''[z]a opredeljevanje besed, pomenov ali zvez slovar uporablja kvalifikatorje. To so pojasnila, ki povedo, v katero slovnicno kategorijo spada beseda, jo opredeljujejo casovno oziroma krajevno, govorijo o njeni stilni uvrstitvi, razširjenosti in vrednosti ter nakazujejo preneseno ali posebno rabo. S tem kažejo na normo knjižnega jezika ali opozarjajo na razmerje do nje'' in da ''[b]rez upoštevanja kvalifikatorjev informacija o besedi ni popolna(§ 98).'' Poleg kvalifikatorjev SSKJ2 uporablja še t. i. kvalifikatorsko pojasnilo (SSKJ2 2014; Uvod § 155), to je: ''[...] kvalifikatorjem podobno, v daljši enoti izraženo opozorilo''. Namen kvalifikatorskega pojasnila je, da (§ 156) ''[...] dopolnjuje pomensko razlago; praviloma nakazuje okolje oziroma cas, v katerem pojem živi''. Tako stilno-zvrstni kvalifikator nar. s kvalifikatorskim pojasnilom (tukaj vzhodno) (§ 138) ''[...] kaže na širše ali ožje doloceno podrocje rabe''. Rajhovo gradivo za severozahodnoprleški narecni slovar Gúcati po antůjoško Z iskalnim kriterijem nar. vzhodno smo iz SSKJ2 izpisali 98 glagolov in glagolske iztocnice primerjali s pojavnostjo v Rajhovem gradivu za severozahodnoprleški narecni slovar Gúcati po antůjoško (2010) in v Slovenskem pravopisu (SP 2001). Rajh je leta 2010 izdal gradivo za slovar severozahodnoprleškega narecja Gúcati po antůjoško, ki obsega 293 strani in predstavlja dragocen popis še (bolj ali manj, vsaj v spominu) ohranjenega narecnega besedja, posebej zaradi vecpomenskosti izrazja in ustreznih (znotrajjezikovnih) prevodov v knjižni jezik. Avtor ga tudi sam poimenuje ''gradivo za narecni slovar'', v katerem je zbral ''/…/ splošno besedje /…/, torej besedni inventar, ki ga pri jezikovnem sporazumevanju (podeželski) narecni govorci uporabljajo za razlicna podrocja svojega življenja in dela /…/''. Ime v naslovu slovarja izvira iz nekdanjega poimenovanja kraja Cerkvenjak, in sicer po gotski cerkvi v kraju. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije (1995: 100) o Cerkvenjaku podaja zelo skop opis: ''Razloženo naselje v osrcju Slovenskih goric leži na trikrakem slemenu med Pesniško in Šcavniško dolino. Središce je na kopastem vrhu slemena (341 m). /…/ Cerkvenjak je gospodarsko, upravno, kulturno in izobraževalno središce širšega obmocja. Vrh grica je vitka poznogotska župnijska cerkev sv. Antona Pušcavnika iz prve polovice 16. stoletja. Cerkev je tu stala že v 13. stoletju in kraj, prvic omenjen leta 1460, je po njej dobil ime. Domacini naselje imenujejo tudi Sv. Anton.'' Rajh (2003: 118-134) je v prispevku predstavil ''izbrani inventar severozahodnoprleškega besedja'', kjer je poleg glasovnih posebnosti besed obravnaval besedje tudi glede na izvor. Najprej navaja slovansko avtohtono besedje, za katero velja, da ''se lahko ponaša s svojo arhaicnostjo'' - nekaj izbranih glagolov: bo..:lti ‘godrnjati’, br.'diti ‘packati s hrano’, b'zi:kati ‘brizgati’, d'ri:fati ‘spati’, g'ri:vati ‘skrbeti, vznemirjati’, k.'l.xati ‘grdo padati’, k'ri:kati ‘vriskati’ 'mi:lti se ‘biti žal’, 'mu:fti ‘godrnjati’, p.š'k.:titi se ‘ponesreciti se, ne uspeti’ itd. Rajh v nadaljevanju podaja pregled prevzetega besedja, ki je vecinoma nemško, povzema ga iz svojega clanka Glagoli v severozahodnoprleškem govoru (2006: 399-406), zato etimologije dodatno nismo preverjali po Snojevem ali Bezlajevem etimološkem slovarju. Nekaj izbranih glagolov: 'bu:xn.ti ‘planiti, zagoreti’, 'cikn.ti ‘skisati se’, 'fa:jntati ‘ne marati’, fr.'günti si ‘privošciti si’, 'lo..:diti ‘mamiti, napeljevati’, 'p.:rcati ‘cepiti (drevo)’, 'pü:vati ‘graditi’, š'va:rati se ‘pritoževati se’, t'rü:cati ‘nagovarjati, prositi’, 'ža:mati ‘obrezovati deske (skorjo)’. V severozahodnoprleškem govoru je izposojenk iz drugih jezikov manj (prav tam: 119-123). Narecne glagole je Rajh (2006: 399-406) razdelil glede na: a) avtohtono oz. prevzeto glagolsko podstavo z najrazlicnejšimi pomenskimi vrednostmi: avtohtone slovanske: d.'jiti, .be'cati …; b) prevzete z germanskega (nemškega) govornega obmocja: ge'pi:rati, g'ra:tati; c) izrazite skupine narecnih glagolov glede na nedolocniški oz. sedanjiški koncaj, posebnosti glagolskih morfemov, c) samosvojo oblikoglasno podobo narecnih glagolskih oblik ter d) pomene narecnih glagolov. Prav tako narecne glagole glede na pomen uvršca med: a) sinonimijo: 'f.:xtati – 'b.:rmati ‘prosjaciti’; b) vecpomenskost: 'xa:ndlati ‘prekupcevati; pogajati se za ceno’; c) metaforicnost: v'nicti se ‘napraviti samomor’; c) pomen glede na mesto naglasa ter kakovost in kolikost naglašenega samoglasnika: 'va:lati ‘valjati’ : va'lati ‘veljati’; d) glagole s prostimi morfemi – po nemških zgledih, kjer se spremeni pomen: 'g.r g'l.:dati ‘biti nevošcljiv’, nap'r.: me'tati ‘ocitati’. Analiza gradiva Za potrebe tega prispevka je bilo podrobneje pregledanih 98 glagolov (glagol regetáti ima v SSKJ2 dva pomena), izpisanih iz SSKJ2, opremljenih s kvalifikatorjem nar. (narecno), razširjenim s kvalifikatorskim pojasnilom vzhodno. Analiza prinaša primerjalen popis glagolskih iztocnic in kaže na pomen vkljucenosti narecnega aktualnega besedja tudi v normativne prirocnike (SSKJ2 in SP), ki uporabljajo kvalifikatorje za oznacevanje zvrstnosti slovenskega jezika, v tem primeru narecij. V pregledu niso predstavljene narecne znacilnosti posameznih besed glede na ožjo umešcenost v narecje (ali govor), ampak zgolj vzporednice na ravni pomena besede. Pregled glagolov iz Rajhovega slovarja kaže na številne evidentirane besede, ki današnjo rabo potrjujejo. Za analizo je bil izbran le eden izmed vzhodnih narecnih govorov, nadaljnje raziskave bi lahko zajele vkljucevanje (aktualizacijo) najpogostejšega narecnega besedja tudi iz novejših narecnih slovarjev/popisov gradiva v normativne prirocnike sploh. V SP smo preverjali, koliko glagolskih iztocnic iz SSKJ2, oznacenih z nar. vzhodno, je (sploh) zajetih v SP in s katerimi kvalifikatorji v okviru socialnozvrstnih oznak (§ 1060) so opredeljene. Predvidevali smo, da s kvalifikatorjem pokr. vzh. (pokrajinsko vzhodno), saj je kvalifikator pokr. pojasnjen kot ''/…/ pokrajinsko pogovorno neknjižna prvina, znacilna za vecja podrocja slovenskega ozemlja, npr. za primorsko, štajersko, koroško, dolenjsko, rovtarsko, in tudi za manjša, npr. za belokranjski, celjski, koprski, tržaški okoliš ipd. (kjer je mogoce, je to v slovarju tudi nakazano)''. Primerjalna analiza Glagoli so zaradi preglednosti v nadaljevanju izpisani iz SSKJ2 po abecednem redu. Ob iz SSKJ2 izpisanih iztocnicah je v oklepaju najprej zapisana pojavnost v a) Rajhovem slovarju (2010) (R+) ali odsotnost (R–). Kot izpricana v Rajhovem slovarju šteje tudi iztocnica, ki se navezuje na pomen iz iztocnice v SSKJ2, ima pa drugacno glasoslovno ali pisno podobo ali gre za drugo besedno vrsto, npr. v SSKJ2 je iztocnica glagolska, pri Rajhu pa samostalniška, zato je izpisano tudi pojasnilo, primer: címiti ‘poganjati kal(i); kaliti’ (R–; sam. cěma ‘poganjek, kalcek’/SP+; pokr. vzh.). Za poševnico sledi pojavnost v SP (+) ali ne (–), za podpicjem je dodan kvalifikator, ce je ta v SP zapisan. - bíncati ‘pobrcavati, brcati’: (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - bráti ‘nabirati, trgati’ (R+/SP+; neobc.); - bútati ‘narediti iz zbite ilovice’ (R+/SP+; bútan . pokr. vzh.); - cécati ‘sesati’ (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - címiti ‘poganjati kal(i); kaliti’ (R–; sam. cěma ‘poganjek, kalcek’/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - címprati ‘postavljati kaj, navadno iz lesa’ (R+/SP–; delati, sestavljati); - capljáriti ‘slišno, tleskajoce padati ali teci; cofotati’ (R+; caplŕrti/SP–); - cemeríti ‘jeziti, vznemirjati’ (R–/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - cmrkniti ‘crhniti’(R–; cmr`knti/cmr`knti ‘srkniti’/SP–); - crckati ‘ceckati’ (R+/SP–); - cúti ‘s sluhom zaznavati, slišati’ (R+/SP+; pešaj.); - dahnéti ‘zaudarjati’ (R–/SP+; pokr.); - dojíti ‘iztiskati, odvzemati mleko iz vimena; molsti’ (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - drežáti ‘godrnjati, sitnariti; cemeti, ždeti’ (R–; dręgati/SP–); - fráckati ‘(na rahlo) pokati’ (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - frkóciti ‘kodrati, navijati’ (R+; frko.´cti/SP–); - frlúckati ‘žvižgati, požvižgavati’ (R–/SP+; pokr. zah.); - fúckati ‘žvižgati, piskati’ (R–/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - grdíti ‘gabiti se, gnusiti se’ (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - húpkati ‘pestovati, ujckati; poskakovati’ (R+/SP–); - izcímiti se ‘vzkaliti, vzkliti’ (R–/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - kípniti ‘vzhajati, narašcati’ (R+/SP–); - kolíniti ‘pripravljati prašica za hrano; klati’ (R–; klŕti/SP–); - kvókati ‘kokati, klokati’ (R+/SP–); - lécati se ‘pretegovati se, stegovati se’ (R+/SP–); - lúpati ‘odstranjevati lupino, kožo; lupiti’ (R+/SP–); - méžiti ‘odstranjevati lubje z muževnega debla; majiti’ (R–; me.´žti ‘mendrati’/SP–); - mrcáti ‘mrmrati, brundati’ (R– mrcati; ‘rencati’/SP–); - nabútati ‘nabiti, zbiti’ (R+; ‘butati ilovico za stene’/SP+; pokr.); - nadájati ‘dojiti’ (R+/SP–); - nadojíti ‘namolsti’ (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - nafrkóciti ‘nakodrati, naviti’ (R–/SP–); - nakápati ‘nalagati, nakladati’ (R–/SP–); - nakípniti ‘vziti, narasti’ (R+; kěpnti/SP–); - namísliti ‘v mislih izoblikovati, ustvariti, kar ne ustreza resnici; izmisliti si’ (R–; zmišlávati si /SP+; star.); - napévati ‘peti prvi del besedila, na katerega drugi odgovarjajo ali ga nadaljujejo’ (R–/SP–); - naškrápljati ‘zacenjati deževati’ (R–/SP–); - natékati se ‘zamakati, pušcati’ (R+/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - navolíti se ‘navelicati se’ (R+/SP–); - navzdígniti ‘zaceti peti’ (R–/SP–); - obdáciti ‘obdavciti’ (R–/SP–); - obelíti ‘pobeliti’ (R–/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - odškrniti ‘nekoliko odpreti; odviti’ (R+/SP+); - odvréti ‘popustiti zavoro pri vozilu; odviti, odpreti’ (R+/SP+); - ogíbati se ‘odstranjevati, umikati’ (R+/SP+); - pášciti se ‘hiteti’ (R–/SP–); - plántati ‘šepati’ (R–; plajtrŕti/SP–); - podojíti ‘pomolsti’ (R+/SP–); - podrgati ‘podrgniti, pometi’ (R–/SP–); - pometávati ‘kotiti’ (R–/SP–); - poslánjati ‘naslanjati se’ (R+; poslŕjati/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - posloníti ‘nasloniti, prisloniti’ (R–; poslůnti/SP–); - poslúhniti ‘ubogati’ (R–; zaceti (pazljivo) poslušati; prisluhniti/SP–); - posodíti ‘spremiti ga; iti za njegovim pogrebom’ (R–/SP–); - postrúgati ‘postrgati’ (R+/SP–); - potákati ‘gugati, zibati’ (R+/SP–); - potrúpati ‘razbiti, razdejati’ (R–/SP–); - povlacíti ‘pobranati’ (R+; povlácti/SP+; pokr. vzh.); - povodíti ‘prekaditi’ (R–/SP–); - prebraníti ‘prepreciti, ne dovoliti’ (R+; prebránti/SP–); - prepeléti ‘valjati se, (navadno) v sipki snovi; kopati se’ (R–/SP–); - prepelíti se ‘valjati se, (navadno) v sipki snovi; kopati se; frfotati, kriliti; oprezovati’ (R–/SP); - prézati ‘govoriti, pripovedovati; oprezati’ (R–; lušciti se sam od sebe, odpirati se’/SP+); - prigánjati ‘poganjati, voditi; goniti’ (R–/SP–); - priškrniti ‘priviti; kaznovati, prijeti’ (R–/SP–); - razbrcati ‘raztrositi’ (R–; brckati/SP–); - razcemeríti ‘razjeziti’ (R–/SP–); - regetáti ‘dreti se, kricati’ (R+/SP–); - regetáti ‘klopotati, ropotati’ (R–/SP–); - rézati ‘tepsti, pretepati’ (R+/SP–); - ríbiti ‘loviti ribe’ (R+; ríbti /SP–); - sklapoúhati ‘oklofutati’ (R–/SP–); - sklapoúškati ‘oklofutati’ (R+; sklapovü`škati . klapovü`škati/SP–); - sklásti ‘zložen’ (R–/SP–); - skrmiti ‘spitati’ (R–/SP+); - slívkati ‘dajati otožne, prošnjo izražajoce glasove’ (R–/SP–); - spárati ‘narediti, da kaj sestavlja par; spariti’ (R+ spárati . párati/SP–); - sprevézati ‘prevezati’ (R–/SP–); - stelíti se ‘roditi, povreci tele; oteliti se’ (R–/SP–); - sváditi ‘jeziti’ (R+/SP–); - svajeváti se ‘prepirati se’ (R+; svajüvŕti se/SP–); - šléviti ‘cvekati’ (R–/SP–); - šlígati ‘švrkati’ (R–/SP–); - šmíckati ‘švrkati’ (R+/SP–); - vodíti ‘prekajevati’ (R–/SP–); - zabíncati ‘zabrcati’ (R+; běncati/SP+; bincati pokr. vzh. –); - zafúckati ‘zažvižgati, zapiskati’ (R+; fü´ckati/SP+; neknj. pog.); - zagolcáti ‘reci, povedati’ (R–/SP–); - zajókati ‘objokan’ (R–/SP–); - zamrcáti ‘zamrmrati, zabrundati’ (R– mrcati ‘rencati’/SP–); - zaškrniti ‘priviti’ (R+; zaškrnti/SP–); - zažmíkati ‘zmeckati, stlaciti’ (R+; zažmíkati . žmíkati/SP–); - zbútati ‘zbiti, nabiti’ (R+; ‘butati ilovico za stene’/SP+ butan); - zdávati ‘cerkveno porocati’ (R+/SP–); - zgrdíti ‘iztrebiti se’ (R–/SP–); - zváti ‘prositi; vabiti’ (R–; klicati/SP–; star. klicati); - žmíkati ‘meckati, tolci’ (R+; /SP–); - žórgati ‘cmokati, cofotati’ (R+; /SP–). Ugotovitve Od 98 glagolskih iztocnic nar. vzhodno iz SSKJ2 je: – v SP zabeleženih 29 iztocnic (69 ni zabeleženih), v Rajhovem slovarju 48 (50 ni zabeleženih); – v obeh virih, v SP in v Rajhovem slovarju, zabeleženih 19 iztocnic: bíncati, bráti, bútati, cécati, cúti, dojíti, fráckati, grdíti, nabútati, nadojíti, natékati se, odškrniti, odvréti, ogíbati se, poslánjati, povlacíti, zabíncati, zafúckati, zbútati; – samo v SP zabeleženih 10 iztocnic: címiti, cemeríti, dahnéti, frlúckati, fúckati, izcímiti se, obelíti, prézati, skrmiti, namísliti; – samo v Rajhovem slovarju zabeleženih 30 iztocnic: címprati, capljáriti, crckati, frkóciti, žmíkati, húpkati, kípniti, kvókati, lécati se, lúpati, nadájati, nakípniti, navolíti se, podojíti, postrúgati, potákati, prebraníti, rézati, regetáti (dva pomena), ríbiti, sklapoúškati, spárati, sváditi, svajeváti se, šmíckati, zaškrniti, zažmíkati, zdávati, žórgati; – le v SP ni zabeleženih 29 iztocnic: címprati, capljáriti, crckati, frkóciti, žmíkati, húpkati, kípniti, kvókati, lécati se, lúpati, nadájati, nakípniti, navolíti se, podojíti, postrúgati, potákati, prebraníti, rézati, ríbiti, sklapoúškati, spárati, sváditi, svajeváti se, šmíckati, zaškrniti, zažmíkati, zdávati, žórgati, regetáti; – le v Rajhovem slovarju ni zabeleženih 10 iztocnic: címiti, cemeríti, dahnéti, frlúckati, fúckati, izcímiti se, obelíti, prézati, skrmiti, namísliti; – v nobenem od virov, v SP in v Rajhovem slovarju, ni zabeleženih 40 iztocnic: cmrkniti, drežáti, kolíniti, méžiti, mrcáti, nafrkóciti, nakápati, napévati, naškrápljati, navzdígniti, obdáciti, pášciti se, plántati, podrgati, pometávati, posloníti, poslúhniti, posodíti, potrúpati, povodíti, prepeléti, prepelíti se, prigánjati, priškrniti, razbrcati, razcemeríti, regetáti, sklapoúhati, sklásti, slívkati, sprevézati, stelíti se, šléviti, šlígati, vodíti, zagolcáti, zajókati, zamrcáti, zgrdíti, zváti. Izpisani in primerjani glagoli s kvalifikatorjem narecno vzhodno iz SSKJ2 imajo v SP naslednje socialnozvrstne oznake (SP 2001, § 1059: zvrstne, stilne in druge oznake v slovarju so: pri socialnih zvrsteh: (zborno) privzdig(njeno), knj(ižno) pog(ovorno), ljud(sko), (knjižno) neobc(evalno), neknj(ižno) pog(ovorno), neknj(ižno) ljud(sko), pokr(ajinskopogovorno), nar(ecno), mestn(e govorice), izobr(azbeno), sleng(ovsko), žarg(onsko), latov(sko)): - pokr(ajinsko) vzh(odno) 17: od teh jih šest ni najti v Rajhovem slovarju (R) (2010): bíncati, bútati, cécati, címiti (R–), cemeríti (R–), dojíti, fráckati, frlúckati (R–), fúckati (R–), grdíti, izcímiti se (R–), nadojíti, natékati se, obelíti (R–), poslánjati, povlacíti, zabíncati; - pokr(ajinsko) dva: dahnéti (R–), nabútati (R+); - neknj(ižno) pog(ovorno) eden: zafúckati (R+). Sklep V prispevku smo predstavili primerjalno analizo glagolov, v SSKJ2 oznacenih s stilno-zvrstnim kvalifikatorjem nar. (narecno), razširjenim s kvalifikatorskim pojasnilom vzhodno. Gre za del širše raziskave, ki se osredinja na pregled in obseg tako oznacenih vseh iztocnic v SSKJ2 (414 iztocnic, od tega 274 samostalnikov, 98 glagolov, 26 pridevnikov in 16 drugih besednih vrst – 12 prislovov, le po en zaimek, veznik, medmet in clenek). Prispevek prinaša pregled samo glagolskih iztocnic, teh je 98, z oznako nar. vzhodno iz SSKJ2, primerjanih z glagoli iz Rajhovega gradiva, dodatno še s SP. Ugotavljamo, da je v SP zabeleženih 29 iztocnic (69 ni zabeleženih), v Rajhovem slovarju pa je zabeleženih iztocnic 48 (50 ni zabeleženih); v obeh virih, v SP in pri Rajhu, je zabeleženih 19 iztocnic (nekaj primerov): bíncati ‘pobrcavati, brcati’, bráti ‘nabirati, trgati’, cécati ‘sesati’ itd. Analizirani glagoli imajo v SP naslednje socialnozvrstne oznake: 17 pokr(ajinsko) vzh(odno): od teh jih šest ni pri Rajhu: címiti ‘poganjati kal(i); kaliti’, cemeríti ‘jeziti, vznemirjati’, frlúckati ‘žvižgati, požvižgavati’, fúckati ‘žvižgati, piskati’, izcímiti se ‘vzkaliti, vzkliti’, obelíti ‘pobeliti’; dva glagola sta oznacena s pokr(ajinsko): dahnéti ‘zaudarjati’ (pri Rajhu ni), nabútati ‘nabiti, zbiti’ (pri Rajhu je) in eden pa neknj(ižno) pog(ovorno): zafúckati ‘zažvižgati, zapiskati’ (pri Rajhu je). Zavedamo se, da vsi tako oznaceni leksemi v obeh normativnih prirocnikih niso zabeleženi v obravnavanem narecnem slovarju, saj oba normativna prirocnika (SSKJ2 in SP), s kvalifikatorjem zajemata besedje širšega narecnega prostora in da je predstavljena analiza primerjalno zajela le enega izmed vzhodnih narecnih govorov. Ta pa predstavlja velik nabor še živega, aktualnega besedja. Namen je bil poudariti pomen vkljucenosti narecnega besedja v normativne prirocnike, kot sta SSKJ2 in SP, saj besede, opremljene s kvalifikatorji, nanašajocimi se (tudi) na narecja, zelo olajšajo delo vsem, ki se pri delu srecujejo z besedjem razlicnih socialnih zvrsti, pa naj bodo to ucenci/dijaki/študenti in ucitelji, lektorji pri filmu ali v gledališcu ter prevajalci. Summary The paper presents a comparative analysis of verbs with the style-genre label nar. (dialectal), further specified as vzhodno (eastern) in The Dictionary of Standard Slovenian Language (Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika2 – SSKJ2 2014), which are then compared to Rajh's material for his dialectal dictionary Gúcati po antůjoško (2010) and to The Slovenian Orthography (Slovenski pravopis – SP 2001). The analysis is part of a broader study focusing on the total of 414 entries so labelled in the SSKJ2, of which 274 are nouns, 98 verbs, and 26 adjectives, while 16 belong to other word classes (12 adverbs, 1 pronoun, 1 conjunction, 1 interjection, and 1 particle). The first (already presented) part is a sample comparison of the incidence of (only) those nouns labelled nar. vzhodno (dialectal eastern). The present article provides an overview of the entries for verbs alone. There are 98 such entries labelled as nar. vzhodno (dialectal eastern) in the SSKJ2 these are then compared to Rajh's material for his dialectal dictionary and to the SP. We find that the SP records 29 entries (69 are not registered), while Rajh's dictionary contains 48 of them (50 are not registered). In addition, 19 entries are included in both the SP and Rajh's dictionary, e.g. bíncati 'pobrcavati, brcati' (to kick), bráti (to gather), cécati (to suck), etc. The verbs analysed in the SP are labelled as follows: 17 pokr(ajinsko) vzh(odno) (provincial eastern), six of which do not feature in Rajh's dictionary. These are címiti (to sprout), cemeríti (to upset), frlúckati (to whistle), fúckati (to whistle), izcímiti se (to sprout), and obelíti (to whiten). Two verbs are labelled as only pokr(ajinsko) (provincial): dahnéti ‘zaudarjati’ (to stink), and nabútati ‘nabiti, zbiti’ (to beat); the first does not feature in Rajh's dictionary, while the second does. One is labelled as neknj(ižno) pog(ovorno) (non-standard colloquial): zafúckati ‘zažvižgati, zapiskati’ (to whistle, to blow), being an entry in Rajh's dictionary as well. Even though the analysis covers only one of the eastern dialects, it presents a large number of dialectal words which are currently still in use. The aim of this paper is therefore to point out the importance of incorporating and labelling the current dialectal vocabulary into the normative manuals such as the SSKJ2 and the SP. Labelling in particular can be of great help to translators, to language editors in the film industry and in theatre and to all others who, in their professional work, need to distinguish between social and regional varieties of Slovene. Viri Rajh, B. (2010): Gúcati po antůjoško: gradivo za narecni slovar severozahodnoprleškega govora, Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 73). SLOVAR slovenskega knjižnega jezika (2000). [Elektronski vir]/avtorji sodelavci Inštituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU; glavni uredniški odbor Anton Bajec ... [idr.]; izdajatelja SAZU in Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU. Elektronska objava. El. knjiga. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 2014. Pridobljeno s http://www.fran.si/130/sskj-slovar-slovenskega-knjiznegajezika. (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.) SLOVENSKI pravopis. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU, 2001. Elektronska objava, spletna izdaja 2014. Pridobljeno s http://fran.si/134/slovenski-pravopis (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.). Literatura Hajnšek - Holz, M. (1997): Pleteršnikov Slovensko-nemški slovar kot vir za Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 3, 105–112. Pridobljeno (tudi) s http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-TZZVYV9M (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.). Jan, Z. (2007): Narecje pri pouku slovenskega jezika kot materinšcine. V V. Smole (ur.), Slovenska narecja med sistemom in rabo, (str. 497–506). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete (Obdobja, Metode in zvrsti; 26). KARTA slovenskih narecij z vecjimi naselji (2016). [Karto Tineta Logarja in Jakoba Riglerja (1983) dopolnili sodelavci Dialektološke sekcije ISJFR ZRC SAZU (2016). Pridobljeno s fran.si › sla-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas › datoteke › SLA_Karta-narecij. (Dostopno: 20. 4. 2020.). Kenda Jež, K. (2004): Narecje kot jezikovnozvrstna kategorija v sodobnem jezikoslovju. V E. Kržišnik (ur.), Aktualizacija jezikovnozvrstne teorije na Slovenskem: clenitev jezikovne resnicnosti, (str. 263–276). Ljubljana: Center za slovenšcino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovenistiko Filozofske fakultete. (Obdobja, Metode in zvrsti; 22). Pridobljeno z www.centerslo.net/files/File/simpozij/sim22/Smole.pdf (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.) Koletnik, M. (2001): Slovenskogoriško narecje. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. Koletnik, M. (2008): Panonsko loncarsko in kmetijsko izrazje ter druge dialektološke razprave. Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 60). Koletnik, M. (2015): Medjezikovni stiki v besedju iz pomenskega polja kmetija v slovenskogoriškem narecju. Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta. (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 109). KRAJEVNI leksikon Slovenije / [priprava in urejanje] Milan Orožen Adamic, Drago Perko, Drago Kladnik. Ljubljana: DZS, 1995. Logar, T. (1993): SLOVENSKA narecja. [Dva medija] / Besedila zbral in uredil [in spremno besedo napisal] Tine Logar. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. (Zbirka Cicero) Perdih, A., Snoj, M. (2015): SSKJ2. Slavia Centralis. VIII/1, 5–15. Pleteršnik, M. (2006): Slovensko-nemški slovar: (1894–1895) [Elektronski vir, CD ROM]. M. Furlan, H. Dobrovoljc in H. Jazbec (ur.). Transliterirana izd. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU: Amebis. Pridobljeno s http://isjfr.zrc-sazu.si/pletersnik/ (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.). Pulko, S., Zemljak Jontes, M. (2015): Slovensko ali knjižno – kako je prav? Maribor: Aristej, Slavisticno društvo Maribor. Rajh, B. (2002): Od narecja do vzhodnoštajerskega knjižnega jezika. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. (Zora; 19). Rajh, B. (2003): Besedje in besedne zveze v severozahodnoprleškem govoru. V Z. Zorko, M. Koletnik (ur.), Glasoslovje, besedoslovje in besedotvorje v delih Jakoba Riglerja, (str. 118-134). Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. (Zora; 25). Rajh, B. (2006): Glagoli v severozahodnoprleškem govoru. V M. Koletnik, V. Smole (ur.), Diahronija in sinhronija v dialektoloških raziskavah, (str. 399-406). Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. (Zora; 41). Rajh, B. (2011): Glasovne in naglasne premene v severozahodnoprleškem govoru. V M. Jesenšek (ur.), Globinska moc besede: red. prof. dr. Martini Orožen ob 80-letnici, (str. 343–359). Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta. (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 80). Ramovš, F. (1935): Historicna gramatika slovenskega jezika. 7, Dialekti. V Ljubljani: Uciteljska tiskarna (Dela / Znanstveno društvo za humanisticne vede v Ljubljani; 1). Skubic, E. A. (2005): Obrazi jezika. Ljubljana: Študentska založba. Smole, V. (2004): Nekaj resnic in zmot o narecjih v Sloveniji danes. V E. Kržišnik (ur.), Aktualizacija jezikovnozvrstne teorije na Slovenskem: clenitev jezikovne resnicnosti, (str. 321–330). Ljubljana: Center za slovenšcino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovenistiko Filozofske fakultete. (Obdobja, Metode in zvrsti; 22). Pridobljeno z www.centerslo.net/files/File/simpozij/sim22/Smole.pdf (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.) Smole, V. (2007): Pomen in vloga slovenskih narecij danes. V V. Smole (ur.), Slovenska narecja med sistemom in rabo, (str. 557–563). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. (Obdobja, Metode in zvrsti; 26). SVETI Anton v Slovenskih goricah: 500 let (2016). B. Rajh (ur.). Cerkvenjak: Župnija Sveti Anton v Slovenskih goricah. Toporišic, Jože (2000): Slovenska slovnica, Maribor: Založba Obzorja. UCNI nacrt. Program osnovna šola. Slovenšcina (2018). [Elektronski vir]. Ljubljana: Republika Slovenija, Ministrstvo za izobraževanje, znanost in šport: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. Pridobljeno s https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/Osnovna-sol-a/Ucni-nacrti/obvezni/UN_slovenscina.pdf (Dalje UN OŠ 2018.) (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.). UCNI nacrt. Slovenšcina: gimnazija: splošna, klasicna, strokovna gimnazija: obvezni predmet in matura (560 ur) (2008). [Elektronski vir]. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport: Zavod RS za šolstvo, 2008. Pridobljeno s http://eportal.mss.edus.si/msswww/programi2019/programi/medi–a/pdf/un_gimnazija/un_slovenscina_gimn.pdf. (Dostopno: 5. 2. 2020.). Valh Lopert, A. (2013): Med knjižnim in neknjižnim na radijskih valovih v Mariboru. Maribor: Litera. Valh Lopert, A. (2015): Narecje kot izraz identitete na radijskih postajah v severovzhodni Sloveniji: (Radio Ptuj, Radio Murski val, Radio Slovenske gorice)''. Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje. 86 = n. v. 51, št. 4, 46–59. Valh Lopert, A. (2016): Kvalifikator narecno vzhodno v SSKJ2. V M. Jesenšek (ur.). Rojena v narecje, (str. 284-297). Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 114). Valh Lopert, A., Koletnik, M. (2011): Mariboršcina kot identitetni dejavnik v radijskem diskurzu. Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 82 = n. v. 47, št. 1 (2011),. 121–134. Valh Lopert, A., Koletnik, M. (2018): Non-standard features of the Slovene language in Slovene popular culture. Maribor: Univerzitetna založba Univerze. (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 127). Zemljak Jontes, M., Pulko, S. (2011): Govorica mladostnikov v šoli – narecna ali nenarecna? = The language of pupils in school – dialectal or not?. V M. Jesenšek (ur.), Globinska moc besede: red. prof. dr. Martini Orožen ob 80-letnici, (str. 407–420). Maribor: Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta. (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 80). Zorko, Z. (1994): Samoglasniški sestavi v slovenskih narecnih bazah (ob izbranih narecnih besedilih). V M. Orožen (ur.), Zbornik predavanj / XXX. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, 27. 6.–16. 7. 1994, (str. 325–343). Ljubljana: Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture pri Oddelku za slovanske jezike in književnosti Filozofske fakultete. Zorko, Z. (1998): Haloško narecje in druge dialektološke študije. Maribor: Slavisticno društvo. (Zora; 6) Zorko, Z. (2005): Štajersko-panonska glasoslovna narecna prepletanja (Štatenberg, Zgornja Sveca, Strmec, Žahenberci), Studia Historica Slovenica: casopis za humanisticne in družboslovne študije 5, št. 1/3, 777–791. Zorko, Z. (2009): Narecjeslovne razprave o koroških, štajerskih in panonskih govorih. Maribor: Filozofska fakulteta, Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti. (Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora; 64). Žmavc, M. (2016): Obcina Cerkvenjak in cerkev svetega Antona. V B. Rajh (ur.), SVETI Anton v Slovenskih goricah: 500 let, (str. 5-7). Cerkvenjak: Župnija Sveti Anton v Slovenskih goricah. Spletni viri (Pridobljeno in dostopno 5. 2. 2020.): http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/c/PL/seznam_gno.html (Pleteršnikov Slovensko-nemški slovar. Geografske in narecne oznake s pogostnostmi) http://www.cerkvenjak.si/ http://slovenskegorice.si/vodic/cerkvenjak/ Author Dr. Alenka Valh Lopert Associate professor, University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, e-mail: alenka.valh@um.si Izredna profesorica, Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, e-pošta: alenka.valh@um. PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOUR AMONG STUDENTS IN THE PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMME Potrjeno/Accepted 10. 3. 2021 Objavljeno/Published 30. 9. 2021 ALEKSANDRA ŠINDIC1, KIRIL BARBAREV2, MARKO GAVRILOSKI3 & JURKA LEPICNIK VODOPIVEC3 1 University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philosophy, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 Goce Delchev University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, North Macedonia 3 University of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Slovenia CORRESPONDING AUTHOR/KORESPONDENCNI AVTOR marko.gavriloski@pef.upr.si Keywords: predisposition towards sustainable behaviour, Pre-school Education Kljucne besede: predispozicije za trajnostno vedenje, predšolska vzgoja UDK/UDC: 373.2.011.3-051:502.131.1 Abstract/Izvlecek Starting from the importance of sustainable behaviour among educators for sustainability in kindergarten, the aim of this empirical quantitative study was to investigate the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour among students from the first cycle of the Pre-school Education study programme at three universities. The connection between predispositions, the existence of a difference between cognitive and non-cognitive predispositions, and the absence of a statistically significant difference between the predispositions of the students in relation to home faculty and place of residence were determined. Predispozicije za trajnostno vedenje študentov dodiplomskega študija predšolske vzgoje Cilj empiricne kvantitativne študije je bil raziskati razširjenost predispozicij za trajnostno vedenje študentov dodiplomskega študija predšolske vzgoje treh univerz. Izhodišce raziskave je bil pomen trajnostnega vedenja vzgojiteljev v izobraževanju za trajno delovanje v vrtcu. S študijo smo potrdili povezavo med predispozicijami, obstoj razlike med kognitivnimi in nekognitivnimi predispozicijami ter odsotnost statisticno pomembne razlike med predispozicijami v raziskavo vkljucenih študentov glede na domaco fakulteto in kraj bivanja. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.353-368.2021 Besedilo / Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobcitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Introduction Education for sustainable development should begin at an early age, so that children can become people who show responsibility and care for others (Lepicnik Vodopivec, 2006; Lindberg, 2007; Pearson and Degotardi, 2009; Siraj-Blatchford and Pramling Samuelsson, 2016). As an educational precondition for early age learning, situational and contextual learning of sustainable behaviour according to models from adults, parents, and educators are important, models which require adequate professional guidance (Pribišev Beleslin et al., 2019) and educational programs with an emphasis on pre-schoolers (UNESCO, 2005). In order to achieve this, it is necessary for pedagogical workers to understand and apply the concepts of sustainable development in everyday life (Boric, Jindra and Škugor, 2008), which is achieved by shaping values, behaviour and people’s way of life (UNESCO, 2002), through an integrative way of thinking and acting (UNESCO, 2012). Licen (2015) highlights the UNESCO (2014) conference in Tokyo, which focused on teacher training to evolve education for sustainable development in local settings. Huckle points out the connection between values and sustainable behaviour (2008), and research on a sample of 480 students at the University of Rijeka confirms this (Andic and Tatalovic Vorkapic, 2015), although the level of understanding and attitudes is more pronounced than actual behaviour for sustainable student development, as indicated by a study conducted on 823 respondents from the UAE University (Al-Naqbi and Alshannag, 2018). Studies conducted with pupils and students in several countries (Spain, Croatia, BiH and Turkey) indicate an incomplete harmonization of knowledge, attitudes and sustainable behaviour among young people and the need for education for sustainable development in the initial stage of pedagogical study for optimal adoption of sustainable knowledge, attitudes and behaviour through effective didactic and methodological settings of the constructivist type (Alvarez Suarez and Vega, 2002; Alvarez et al. 2010; Boric, Jidra and Škugor, 2008; Pribišev Beleslin et al. 2019, Roncevic and Rafajac, 2012). This is especially true, given that we are not fully aware of the role of educators in this process (Kahriman Öztürka and Olgan, 2016). Predispositions towards pro-environmental behaviour are also closely related to situational strength, although Runhaar, Wagenaar, Wesseling, and Runhaar (2019) suggest more research to confirm the relationship between situational strength and predispositions towards pro-environmental behaviour. Although environmental education is recognized within educational institutions, the research findings of Ntanos, Kyriakopoulos, Arabatzis, Palios, and Chalikias (2018) indicate that support for environmental efforts and higher levels of motivation are more likely to be needed in the context of family and public socialization than within an educational institution. Given that caring for planet Earth is reflected through the ecological, socio-cultural and economic dimensions (Ärlemaln-Hagsér, Berg and Sandberg, 2018; Breßler and Kappler, 2017; Engdahl, 2015; Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga, 2008; Siraj-Blatchford and Pramling Samuelsson, 2016; Somerville, Williams, 2015), approaches both formal and informal, as well as holistic, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, intergenerational and lifelong approaches, are important in training through the actions of all individuals in the community (UNESCO, 2005; Boric, Jidra and Škugor, 2008; Brekke, Kipperberg and Nyborg, 2010). In accordance with Huckle’s concept, the school’s approach to education for sustainable development is based on a discussion of competences among students and teachers (Huckle, 2005). Raditya-Ležaic, Boromisa and Tišma (2018) estimate that only well-trained and competent teachers will be able to cope with environmental education tasks. We consider the issue of competence to be the main source of meaning in school education for sustainable development. Given the relevance of this construct, questions arise about a whole range of competences in students and teachers. Despite the not-too-optimistic conclusions that follow from overall personal analysis, it is not difficult to understand that the issue of student and teacher competences for sustainable development requires, as is commonly acknowledged, to be worked on continuously. The issue of competences for sustainable development needs to be addressed across a lifetime (Mayer, 2004). Of course, this applies to all levels of its activation. The diversity of partners who appear in the school should certainly be added to this. The role of teachers and the school (Erkilic, 2008), as an institution that primarily, in relation to other partners (factors) influences the development of literacy for sustainability, must, of course, be viewed within a broader social context. Kindergarten and school are just two of the factors to which pupils are exposed. This is especially emphasized by Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological development. Bronfenbrenner classified the social environment into multiple concentric circles, where the environments of the inner circles have a greater influence on the individual. The social environments that have the greatest direct impact on the child are the family and the kindergarten (or school). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of development describes child development as being affected by five systems that in turn affect each other (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The basic systems are those in which a child lives and develops and constitute a microsystem. The basic environments for a preschool child are the family and the kindergarten because the child spends most time there (Ljubetic, 2014). In this environment, children establish direct interactions with important people with whom they have long-term relationships (Peklaj and Pecjak, 2015). Educators play an important role in this, as the third most important factor in children’s development. Therefore, teacher education at the undergraduate level is considered the most effective way to promote sustainable development. Boric, Jidra and Škugur (2008) state in this regard that if educators learn to implement the content of education for sustainable development in curricula and use pedagogical strategies related to the quality of education for sustainable development, then the next generations will be able to shape a world that will be more sustainable. Birdsall and White (2020) emphasize that in the field of environmental and sustainability education, it is important to go beyond the idea that a good educational program can achieve the sustainable development goals. They stress the importance of understanding the integrity of the individual as a thinking and sensitive being capable of self-reflection and responsibility for their role in society. According to Tatkovic, Štifanic and Dikovic (2015), educators are the main implementers and guides of the educational process in kindergartens; therefore, successful implementation of environmental education in kindergarten depends on their practice and competences. All of this points to the importance of training for sustainable development and the need for empirical research to find the most effective approaches to education for sustainable behaviour. Method Starting from the value system as an important link with education, in the context of decision-making and shaping the emotional and behavioural aspect of the individual (Andic and Tatalovic Vorkapic, 2015), we conducted research on the predisposition towards sustainable behaviour among students in the first cycle of the Pre-school Education study programme through the Juárez Nájer model of sustainable behaviour (2010). In a study conducted at two universities (German and Mexican), the author develops a model of sustainable behaviour that contains four categories of predispositions that lead to sustainability. Taking into account Schwartz’s (1994) theory, it derives the universal values and value structures essential to sustainability that build the first category of this model and the subtest of the corresponding research instrument. The second category refers to awareness of the consequences of unsustainable action, while the third category refers to accepting personal responsibility and attributing responsibility as essential elements for activating individual norms (Schwartz, 1970; Stern et al., 1999) for sustainable action (second and third subtest). In the fourth category of Gardner’s model of multiple intelligences (2005), he views interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence from the angle of sustainability (fourth subtest) as an important predisposition towards sustainable behaviour. Recognizing the importance of sustainable behaviour of educators in preschool education for sustainability, we sought, through quantitative empirical research, to explore the predispositions towards sustainable behaviour, such as elements of universal and structural value, awareness of consequences, acceptance and attribution of responsibility, and elements of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. Starting from the model of sustainable behaviour by Juárez Nájer (2010) and reflecting on different learning contexts and environments, the aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour among students in the first cycle of the Pre-school Education study programme at the Faculty of Pedagogy at the University of Koper, the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Banja Luka and the Faculty of Educational Sciences at Goce Delcev University of Štip and connect it with various contexts of the learning environment. Two research variables stand out: the predisposition for sustainable behaviour (universal and structural values of a person for sustainable development, awareness of the consequences of unsustainable behaviour, acceptance and attribution of responsibility for sustainable action and interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence components for sustainable behaviour) and elements of social context teachings (state, city, suburb, village). In the study, we investigated three hypotheses: H1 There is a correlation between the appearance of the given predispositions towards sustainable behaviour. H2 The predisposition towards sustainable behaviour is differently represented among students. H3 There are differences in the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable student behaviour depending on the given social contexts (country, village, suburbs, or city). The research sample is appropriate and included 90 respondents, students in the third year of the first cycle of the Pre-school Education study programme, 30 students each from each faculty. As a research instrument, adaptation of the Juárez Nájer Questionnaire on Sustainable Development (2010) was considered, with a five-point Likert-type scale and four subtests measuring the predisposition towards sustainable student behaviour (universal and structural values of a person in relation to sustainable development, awareness of unsustainable behaviour, acceptance and attributing responsibility for sustainable action, and the interpersonal and intrapersonal components of intelligence in relation to sustainable behaviour). The instrument consisted of 58 items. The first subtest comprised 21 items, the second subtest 8 items, the third 9 items, and the fourth 20 items. We translated the instrument into Slovenian, Serbian and Macedonian. The calculated Alpha Cronbach coefficient, which indicates the internal consistency for the whole instrument, is a = 0.89, which is close to the highest reliability on the test. The measured Alpha Cronbach coefficients for each of the four subtests are a1 = 0.76; a2 = 0.83; a3 = 0.86; a4 = 0.69. This is very close to the reliability measured on the same instrument in a study conducted in Croatia (Andic and Tatalovic Vorkapic, 2015), which supports the reliability of the test and measurements in both studies. Andic and Vorkapic, checking the validity of the instrument, calculated, among other things, the reliability of individual subscales and established that for four subscales, the reliability is a1 = 0.80; a2 = 0.87; a3 = 0.65; a4 = 0.69, which is very close to the reliability measured on the same instrument in our study. The research procedure was performed in the following manner: respecting the ethics (voluntary participation and anonymity of students), we applied the questionnaire to a sample of 90 respondents in the academic year 2019/2020. The collected data were statistically processed using IBM SPSS 20.0 by calculating the Alpha Cronbach coefficient, descriptive statistical measures (frequency and arithmetic mean, Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test), statistical significance of differences between variables (ANOVA analysis and t-test) and correlation between variables (Pearson’s coefficient). Results and discussion Applying the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, we found that there was no statistically significant deviation in the spread of the variables from the normal distribution and that we could apply parametric tests for the predisposition variable for sustainable behaviour (universal and structural values of the person in relation to sustainable development, awareness of the consequences of unsustainable behaviour, acceptance of and attribution for sustainable action and interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal components of sustainable behaviour). Table 1 shows Pearson’s correlation coefficients for these variables because we calculated the correlations for these variables to determine whether there was an interrelationship between the predispositions of students towards sustainable behaviour. The calculated positive and statistically significant Pearson coefficients (Table 1) indicate that there is a proportional, statistically significant correlation between the variables. In other words, if we have a higher value for sustainable behaviour in students, there is a greater chance that awareness of and responsibility for sustainable behaviour will be more emphasized, as well as the development of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence in relation to sustainability. The reverse is also true. The less salient a given predisposition is in students, the greater the chance that others will also be lower. As we can see, there is an interdependence of predispositions towards sustainable student behaviour, thus proving hypothesis H1. This points us to the need to develop all predispositions for sustainable behaviour, that cognitive insight affects the emotional, social and volitional component and desires, and vice versa. This result supports the promotion of education for sustainable development and behaviour through a holistic approach, where the whole personality and numerous aspects of development (not only intellectual) are taken into account, through which an integrative way of thinking and acting is sought and implemented (UNESCO, 2012). Table 1. Correlation of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour Predispositions towards sustainable behaviour values awareness of the consequences Responsibility interpersonal and intrapersonal int. values 1 0.222* 0.335** 0.339** awareness of the consequences 0.222* 1 0.521** 0.346** responsibility 0.335** 0.521** 1 0.546** interpersonal and intrapersonal int. 0.339** 0.346** 0.546** 1 *. Correlation significant at 0.05 level. **. Correlation significant at the 0.01 level. Graphically, we presented the arithmetic means of the representation of each predisposition individually (Graph 1). Notably, there are differences in representation, and awareness of consequences and attribution of responsibility (mostly cognitive) are more pronounced than universal and structural values of the person and emotional and social dimensions for sustainable behaviour and development (mostly non-cognitive). Graph 1. Arithmetic mean of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour. Since the predispositions towards sustainable behaviour were investigated in correlation, to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between them, we applied the t-test for dependent samples and present the results in Table 2. It can be noted that statistically significant differences are present between most predispositions, except between values and interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence in relation to sustainable behaviour and development, on the one hand (mostly non-cognitive predispositions), and awareness of the consequences of unsustainable behaviour and attribution of responsibility (mostly cognitive predispositions), on the other hand. Thus, the subscale of the instrument related to the universal and structural values of a person in relation to sustainable behaviour explored personality traits and features that are closely related to people’s emotional and social nature (discipline, moderation, control, responsibility, honesty, creativity, open-mindedness, leadership, ambition and desires). This could be why the representation of this predisposition does not differ significantly from the representation of the predisposition of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence in relation to sustainability. In addition, the predisposition towards awareness of the consequences of unsustainability that arise from the knowledge of endangering nature as well as the predisposition based on responsibility, i.e., on the knowledge of who can influence and by what actions the sustainability of water, for example, depend on information and acquired knowledge. Based on this finding, it can be seen that there is a difference between cognitive and non-cognitive predispositions towards sustainable behaviour in favour of the first, as evidenced by other contemporary studies (Al-Naqbi and Alshannag, 2018; Boric, Jidra and Škugor, 2008), which represents a good direction for upbringing and education for sustainable development. Numerous authors have pointed out that the drivers of human behaviour and related decisions are often those arising from emotions and other non-cognitive processes and that they can be improved by adequate educational procedures (Chabot and Chabot, 2009; Goleman, 2008; Goleman, 2010; Katz and McClellan, 2005; Milivojevic, 2008). If we respect the holistic approach in educational work, our findings indicate the need for more attention to be paid to the development of socio-emotional and other non-cognitive predispositions towards sustainable behaviour. Table 2. T-ratio of arithmetic values of predispositions towards sustainable student behaviour Predispositions towards sustainable development M SD SEM t p Pair 1 Values 3.72 0.20 0.02 –7.58 0.000 Awareness 4.18 0.29 0.03 Pair 2 Values 3.72 0.20 0.02 –8.83 0.000 Responsibility 4.17 0.38 0.04 Pair 3 Values 3.72 0.20 0.02 –1.91 0.059 inter/intraperson. int. 3.78 0.30 0.03 Pair 4 Awareness 4.18 0.29 0.03 1.10 0.272 Responsibility 4.17 0.38 0.04 Pair 5 awareness inter/intraperson. int. 4.18 3.78 0.29 0.30 0.03 0.03 6.87 0.000 Pair 6 responsibility inter/intraperson. int. 4.17 3.78 0.38 0.30 0.04 0.03 8.49 0.000 Based on the results presented graphically (Graph 1) and in tabular form (Table 2), and based on their interpretation, we can conclude that the H2 hypothesis is partially proved. To investigate the relationship between the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable student behaviour and the specific learning contexts (village, city, state), we applied one-factor univariate analysis for independent ANOVA samples and calculated the Fisher's coefficients (Table 3 and Table 4). Table 3 shows, from left to right, the representation of different predispositions towards sustainable behaviour (values, awareness, responsibility, and interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence in relation to sustainable behaviour) by cities / countries (Koper, Štip, Banja Luka, or Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) number of respondents (N), mean values of predisposition (M), standard deviation (SD), and for each predisposition a Fisher's coefficient (F) and its statistical significance (p). For all the predispositions, the Fisher's coefficient is statistically insignificant (p> 0.5), so the differences, although they exist, are statistically insignificant. Lastly, for the overall predispositions, we see that the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour among preschool education students at the faculties in Koper, Štip and Banja Luka, are respectively, Mk = 16.35; Mš = 15.69; Mbl = 15.68. Based on these results (and from other results in Table 3), it can be noted that, although slightly and statistically insignificant, predispositions towards sustainable behaviour in a sample of 30 students at the Faculty of Pedagogy of the University of Primorska (Koper) are more developed than those in students from the samples in Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, it is possible to notice an almost identical representation of these predispositions in the student sample from the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Goce Delcev in Štip and the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Banja Luka. Furthermore, based on other data, it is evident that students from Koper (although to a statistically insignificant degree) are in the forefront in cognitive predispositions towards awareness of the consequences of unsustainable behaviour and attributing responsibility for sustainable behaviour. Table 3. Difference in the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour among students from three universities (F) Predispositions towards sustainable behaviour City/country N M SD F p Values Koper 30 3.73 0.19 0.796 0.454 Štip 30 3.74 0.20 Banja Luka 30 3.68 0.21 Awareness Koper 30 4.47 0.48 2.946 0.058 Štip 30 4.09 0.28 Banja Luka 30 4.15 0.40 Responsibility Koper 30 4.34 0.36 2.745 0.070 Štip 30 4.06 0.39 Banja Luka 30 4.10 0.36 Inter/intrapersonal Intelligence Koper 30 3.81 0.35 0.256 0.775 Štip 30 3.79 0.34 Banja Luka 30 3.75 0.25 Predispositions in total Koper 30 16.35 0.98 2.685 0.074 Štip 30 15.69 1.19 Banja Luka 30 15.68 1.17 To determine whether there are differences in the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour in relation to the place of permanent residence of students from the sample being a village, suburb or city, we applied ANOVA, the results of which appear in Table 4. The Fisher's coefficient is statistically insignificant (F = 0.134; p = 0.875), and we can conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour among students coming from villages, suburbs or cities. Table 4. Difference in the prevalence of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour among students with different places of residence (village, suburbs, city) Predisposition towards sustainable behaviour City/country N M SD F p Values village 33 16.00 1.7 0.134 0.875 suburb 12 15.84 1.43 city 45 15.91 1.21 Although both formal and informal approaches, together with holistic, intergenerational, and lifelong approaches through the actions of all individuals in the community are important for the adoption of sustainable behaviour and the formation of predispositions (UNESCO, 2005; Boric, Jidra and Škugor, 2008; Brekke, Kipperberg and Nyborg, 2010), we did not confirm statistically significant differences in the development of predispositions towards sustainable behaviour in third-year students, given the different types of research communities in which students live and work (state, city, suburbs and village). Based on the results in Table 3 and Table 4 and their interpretation, we can conclude that we have not proved hypothesis H3, and we can therefore reject it. Conclusion To study the predisposition towards sustainable behaviour among students in the first cycle of the study programme Pre-school Education, as a starting base for creating an additional university program for sustainability, we conducted empirical quantitative research with students in the first cycle of the study programme Pre-school Education at the Faculty of Pedagogy at the University of Koper, the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Banja Luka and the Faculty of Educational Sciences in Goce Delcev University of Štip. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant correlation between predispositions towards sustainable behaviour (values, awareness, responsibility, and interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence related to sustainable behaviour) that encompasses the intellectual, emotional and social aspects of personality, as well as traits and features of personality essential to sustainable behaviour. The pedagogical implication of this finding unequivocally indicates the need for a holistic approach to upbringing and education for sustainable behaviour. The result, which indicates the difference between the prevalence levels of cognitive and non-cognitive predispositions towards sustainable behaviour in students, shows the need for additional training for sustainable development in the direction of encouraging non-cognitive predispositions towards sustainable behaviour and for the creation of optimal training programs. It confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between students in relation to their society and community, whether by state (Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) or place of residence (city, suburbs or village). This paper also raises additional research questions. It indicates the need to study predispositions towards sustainability in the context of other learning environments such as colleges, schools, special courses, electronic media, written literature, organizations that promote sustainability, etc., organizing small action research studies on the effectiveness of specific activities and content in developing and improving sustainable student behaviour. While acknowledging the recommendation that study programs be updated with the content and learning outcomes of education for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2017), this paper and its results provide valuable guidelines for more effective training programming in this area by shedding light on the representation of and relations among current predispositions towards sustainable student behaviour. References Al-Naqbi, A. K., and Alshannag, Q. (2018). The status of education for sustainable development and sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of UAE University students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 566–588. Alvarez, P., De la Fuente, E. I., Perales, F. J., and Garcia, J. (2002). Analysis of quasi-experimental design based on environmental problem-solving for the initial training for future teachers of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 33(2), 19–21. Alvarez Suarez, P., and Vega, M. P. (2010). Developing sustainable environmental behavior in secondary education students (12-16) Analysis of a didactic strategy. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3568–3574. Andic, D., and Tatalovic Vorkapic, S. (2015). Kako mjeriti održivo ponašanje? Adaptacija i validacija Upitnika o održivom ponašanju. Revija za sociologiju, 45(1), 69–97. Ärlemaln-Hagsér, E., Berg, B., and Sandberg, A. (2018). Economic sustainability in Swedish preschools. Preschool teachers and preschools as political economic actors. Utbildning & Demokrati, 27(2), 15–36. Birdsall, S., and White, P. (2020). Making connections: creating relationships with nonhuman nature, place and community. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 36(3), 197–199. Breßler, J., and Kappler, S. (2017). A Systematic Review of Education for Sustainable Development. Working paper. Chemnitz Economic Papers, No. 007. Chemnitz: Chemnitz University of Technology, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Brekke, K. A., Kipperberg, G., and Nyborg, K. (2010). Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription: The Case of Household Recycling. Land Economics, 86(4), 766–784. Boric, E., Jindra, R., and Škugor, A. (2008). Razumijevanje i primjena sadržaja cjeloživotnog ucenja za održivi razvoj. Odgojne znanosti, 10(2), 315–327. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the Development of Children, 2(1), 37–43. Chabot, D., and Chabot, M. (2009). Emocionalna pedagogija. Zagreb: Educa. Engdahl, I. (2015). Early childhood education for sustainability: The OMEP world project. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(3), 347–366. Erkilic, T. A. (2008). Importance of Educational Philosophy in Teacher Training for Educational Sustainable development. Middle-East Journal for Scientific Research, 3(1), 1–8. Gardner, H. (2005). Disciplinirani um. Zagreb: Educa. Goleman, D. (2008). Socijalna inteligencija. Beograd: Geopoetika. Goleman, D. (2010). Ekološka inteligencija. Beograd: Geopoetika. Kahriman Öztürka, D., and Olgan, R. (2016). Analysis of pre-school teachers’ views on the importance of education for sustainable development by means of location and household type in childhood. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(13), 6303–6313. Huckle, J. (2005). Education for Sustainable Development. A briefing paper for the Teacher Training Agency. Revised Edition. Retrieved May 9, 2020, from http://www.ttrb.ac.uk/attachments/5ecda376-6e78-43b1-a39b-230817b68aa4.doc. Huckle, J. (2008). Sustainable development. In The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, (eds.) J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn, 342–354. London: Sage Publications. Juárez Nájer, M. (2010). Sustainability in Higher Education. An explorative approach on sustainable behavior in two universities. Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Katz, L. G., and McClellan, D. E. (2005). Poticanje razvoja djecje socijalne kompetencije. Zagreb: Educa. Lepicnik Vodopivec, J. (2006). Okoljska vzgoja v vrtcu. Ljubljana: AWTS. Lindberg, C. (2007). Opening Address. In Drivers and Barriers for Implementing Learning for Sustainable Development in Pre-School through Upper Secondary and Teacher Education, (eds.) I. Bjornelo, and E. Nyberg, 1–3. Goteborg: UNESCO. Licen, N. (2015). Trajnostni razvoj: od teorije k praksi izobraževanja odraslih. Preizpraševanje globalnega razvojnega modela kot izhodišc za nacrtovanje zelenih izobraževalnih programov. Ajdovšcina: Ljudska univerza. Ljubetic, M. (2014). Od suradnje do partnerstva obitelji, odgojno-obrazovne ustanove i zajednice. Zagreb: Element d. o. o. Mayer, M. (2004). What can we do in schools for ESD? Reflections and proposals from the ENSI International Network. In Quality Environmental Education in Schools for a Sustainable Society: Proceeding of an International Seminar and Workshop on Environmental Education, 135–151. Cheongju, China: Cheongju National University of Education. Milivojevic, Z. (2008). Emocije. Novi Sad: Prometej. Ntanos, S., Kyriakopoulos, G. L., G. Arabatzis, V. Palios and M. Chalikias. (2018). Environmental behavior of secondary education students: A case study at central Greece. Sustainability, 10(5), 1663. Pearson, E., and Degotardi, S. (2009). Education for sustainable development in early childhood education: A global solution to local concerns? International Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 98–111. Peklaj, C., and Pecjak, S. (2015). Psihosocialni odnosi v šoli. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo. Pramling-Samuelsson, I., and Kaga, Y., eds. (2008). The Contribution of Early Childhood Education to a Sustainable Society. Paris: UNESCO. Pribišev Beleslin, T., Mikanovic, B., Partalo, S., Šindic, A., and Licen, N. (2019). Obrazovanje za održivi razvoj u inicijalnom profesionalnom razvoju vaspitaca predškolske djece. In Predškolsko vaspitanje pred izazovima savremenog doba, (eds.) A. Šindic, and J. Lepicnik Vodopivec, 9–26. Banja Luka: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Banjoj Luci; Koper: Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta. Raditya-Ležaic, A., Boromisa, A.-M., and Tišma, S. (2018). Komparativni pregled obrazovanja za održivi razvoj i istraživanje potreba za strucnjacima u Hrvatskoj. Socijalna ekologija: casopis za ekološku misao i sociologijska istraživanja okoline, 27(2), 165–180. Roncevic, N., and i Rafajac, B. (2012). Održivi razvoj – izazov za sveucilište? Rijeka: Filozofski fakultet u Rijeci. Runhaar, P., Wagenaar, K., Wesselink, R., and Runhaar, H. (2019). Encouraging students’ pro-environmental behaviour: Examining the interplay between student characteristics and the situational strength of schools. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 45–66. Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Moral Decision Making and Behavior. In Altruism and Helping Behavior, (eds.) J. Macaulay, and L. Berkowitz, 127–141. New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. Siraj-Blatchford, J., and Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2016). Education for sustainable development in early childhood care and education: An introduction. In International Research on Education for Sustainable Development in Early Childhood, (eds.) J. Siraj-Blatchford, C. Mogharreban, and E. Park, 1–16. Switzerland: Springer. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., and Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Envirnmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81–97. Tatkovic, N., Štifanic, M., and Dikovic, M. (2015). Odgoj i obrazovanje za razvoj danas i sutra. Ekološke i društvene paradigme. Pula: Fakultet za odgojne i obrazovne znanosti. UNESCO. (2002). Education for Sustainability. From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade of commitment. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0-012/001271/127100e.pdf. UNESCO. (2005). United Nations’ Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. France: Division for the Promotion of Quality Education. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://unesdoc.unesc-o.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141629. UNESCO. (2012). Learning for the Future: Competences in Education for Sustainable Development. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/ESD_Publications/Competences_Publication.pdf. UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Education Goals. Learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Authors Dr. Aleksandra Šindic Full professsor, University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philosophy, Bulevar vojvode Petra Bojovica 1A, 78000, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, e-mail: aleksandra.sindic-radic@ff.unibl.org Redna profesorica, Univerza v Banja Luki, Filozofska fakulteta, Bulevar vojvode Petra Bojovica 1A, 78000, Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosna in Herzegovina, e-pošta: aleksandra.sindic-radic@ff.unibl.org Dr. Kiril Barbarev Full professsor, Goce Delchev University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Kej Marshal Tito, Shtip 2000, North Macedonia, e-mail: kiril.barbareev@ugd.edu.mk Redni profesor, Univerza Goce Delcev, Fakulteta za pedagoške vede, Kej Marshal Tito, Shtip 2000, Severna Makedonija, e-pošta: kiril.barbareev@ugd.edu.mk Marko Gavriloski Teaching Assistant, University of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Cankarjeva 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenia, e-mail: marko.gavriloski@pef.upr.si Asistent, Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Cankarjeva 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenija, e-pošta: marko.gavriloski@pef.upr.si Dr. Jurka Lepicnik Vodopivec Full professsor, University of Primorska, Faculty of Education, Cankarjeva 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenia, e-mail: jurka.lepicnik@pef.upr.si Redna profesorica, Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Cankarjeva 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenia, e-pošta: jurka.lepicnik@pef.upr.si MNENJE VZGOJITELJIC IN VZGOJITELJEV O KOMPETENTNOSTI ZA VODENJE GIBALNIH DEJAVNOSTI PREDŠOLSKIH OTROK, UPOŠTEVAJOC LASTNO GIBALNO DEJAVNOST Potrjeno/Accepted 29. 4. 2020 Objavljeno/Published 30. 9. 2021 MATEJ PLEVNIK Univerza na Primorskem, Fakulteta za vede o zdravju, Izola, Katedra za kineziologijo, Izola, Slovenija CORRESPONDING AUTHOR/KORESPONDENCNI AVTOR matej.plevnik@fvz.upr.si Kljucne besede: predšolsko obdobje, vrtec, gibalni razvoj, gibalna spretnost, kompetenca Keywords: preschool period, kindergarten, motor development, motor skill, competency UDK/UDC: 796.035:37.011.3-051 Izvlecek/Abstract Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti, ali je redna prostocasna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev (n = 177) povezana z njihovim subjektivnim vrednotenjem kompetenc za vodenje gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. Za zbiranje podatkov o samoocenjeni gibalni dejavnosti in subjektivni oceni kompetenc za vodenje procesa gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok smo uporabili vprašalnik. Sklenemo lahko, da prostocasna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev predstavlja dejavnik njihove subjektivne zaznave kompetenc za vodenje gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. The opinion of preschool teachers on their self-perceived competence for leading the physical activity process in preschool children in relation to their own leisure-time physical activityThe purpose of the study was to determine whether the regular leisure-time physical activity of preschool teachers (n = 177) is associated with their self-perceived competence for leading physical activities among preschool children. For the data collection on self-assessed physical activity and the subjective assessment of competence for leading the process of physical activities among preschool children, we used a questionnaire. We can conclude that the leisure-time physical activity of preschool teachers is associated with their subjective perception of competence for leading the process of physical activity among preschool children. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.369-389.2021 Besedilo / Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobcitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Uvod Predšolsko obdobje je za oblikovanje gibalnih navad in vzorcev nadvse pomembno obdobje (Janz, Burns in Levy, 2005). Potreba po gibanju je otrokova primarna potreba, zato ima razvoj gibanja – kot enega izmed podrocij dejavnosti v vrtcu – še poseben pomen. Otrok preko gibalnih dejavnosti odkriva in zaznava svoje telo ter preizkuša meje svojih sposobnosti ter spretnosti, ki jih hkrati razvija (Pišot in Jelovcan, 2012). Gibalna dejavnost v zgodnjem otroštvu celostno vpliva na razvoj otroka. Pomemben vpliv ima na gibalni, kostno-mišicni, srcno-žilni in spoznavni razvoj (Timmons idr., 2012; LeBlanc idr., 2012; Hesketh in Campell, 2010) ter pomembno vpliva na gibalne dejavnosti in dejavnike zdravja v odrasli dobi (Timmons idr., 2012). Otrok je v zgodnjem otroštvu izredno dojemljiv za dražljaje okolja, vpliv gibalnih izkušenj je v tem obdobju najvecji. Vedenjski vzorci gibalnega udejstvovanja, ki jih clovek pridobi v otroštvu, se ohranijo skozi celo življenje in sooblikujejo temelje za aktivno in zdravo življenje (Jancic in Planinšec, 2018). Odrasli so zgled in s svojim vedenjem vplivajo na oblikovanje zdravega življenjskega sloga otroka oziroma mladostnika (Pišot in Planinšec, 2005). Poznavanje osnovnih zakonitosti rasti in razvoja ter razvojnih znacilnosti otrok je predpogoj za smiselno nacrtovanje dela in izbiro primernih vsebin gibalnih dejavnosti. Vzgojiteljica in vzgojitelj morata poznati biološke dejavnike razvoja otroka, teorijo gibalne/športne vzgoje in pedagoškega dela. Poznati mora tudi najrazlicnejše otrokove lastnosti in sposobnosti, da proces usvajanja gibalnih vsebin primerno zastavi in ga po potrebi tudi individualno prilagodi (Pišot in Jelovcan, 2012). Gibalno izkušnjo otrok v predšolskem obdobju predstavljajo razlicni vidiki izkušenj gibanja, med drugimi kolicina in intenzivnost gibalne dejavnosti kot tudi vsebina izvedenih gibalnih dejavnosti. Priporocila o kolicini gibalne dejavnosti otrok do 5. leta starosti, ki jih je v letu 2019 objavila Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija (ang. World Health Organization – WHO, 2019) navajajo, da ima gibalna dejavnost otrok v zgodnjem otroštvu izreden pomen pri vseživljenjskem zdravju. Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija (WHO, 2010; WHO, 2019) priporocila za gibalno dejavnost otrok v predšolskem obdobju deli v vec starostnih skupin (preglednica 1). Preglednica 1: Priporocila za gibalno dejavnost otrok v predšolskem obdobju (WHO, 2010; WHO, 2019) Starost Priporocila Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije za gibalno dejavnost predšolskih otrok < 1 leto Otrok naj bo gibalno dejaven veckrat na dan v razlicnih oblikah, priporoca se dejavnost v obliki elementarnih gibanj; ko je otrok zmožen premikanja, se priporoca cim vecja gibalna dejavnost v varnem in nadzorovanem igralnem okolju. 1–2 leti Otrok naj bo gibalno dejaven vsaj 180 minut dnevno v razlicnih oblikah dejavnosti in razlicnih intenzivnostih, vkljucno z zmerno do visoko intenzivno gibalno dejavnostjo. Velja nacelo vec je bolje; gibalna dejavnost naj bo razporejena cez cel dan, vkljucujoc igro v naravnem okolju. 3–4 leta Otrok naj bo gibalno dejaven vsaj 180 minut dnevno v razlicnih oblikah dejavnosti in razlicnih intenzivnostih. Velja nacelo vec je bolje; znotraj 180 minut naj bo vsaj 60 minut dnevno gibalno dejaven v zmerni do visoki intenzivnosti gibalne dejavnosti. 5–17 let Priporocena gibalna dejavnost je vsaj 60 minut dnevno v zmerni do visoki intenzivnosti gibalne dejavnosti; kolicina gibalne dejavnosti, vecja od 60 minut, omogoca zdravju ugodnejše ucinke; ecina dnevne gibalne dejavnosti naj bo aerobnega tipa; dodatno se priporoca vadba za krepitev mišicno-skeletnega sistema vsaj 3- krat tedensko. Cilji za podrocje dejavnosti gibanja, ki so opredeljeni v Kurikulumu za vrtce (Bahovec idr. 1999), za otroke v predšolskem obdobju predvidevajo mnogotero in raznovrstno izpostavljenost razlicnim dražljajem okolja in nalog, ki spodbujajo pridobivanje bogatih gibalnih izkušenj, opravljanje razlicnih gibalnih izzivov z namenom razvoja zavedanja lastnega telesa v prostoru in doživljanja pozitivnih obcutkov v gibanju ter usvajanje najrazlicnejših gibalnih struktur (Videmšek in Pišot, 2007; Lemos, Avigo in Barela, 2012). Kurikulum za vrtce tako predstavlja vsebino in kvalitativno osnovo priporocilom Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije o kolicini in intenzivnosti gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. Številne študije ugotavljajo povezanost med kolicino in intenzivnostjo gibalnih dejavnosti ter usvojenostjo temeljnih gibalnih spretnosti predšolskih otrok (Foweather, Knowles, Ridgers, O’Dwyer, Foulkes in Stratton, 2015; Barnett, Ridgers in Salmon, 2015; Figueroa in An, 2017; Roscoe, James in Duncan, 2019). Kolicina in intenzivnost gibalnih dejavnosti otrok sta v upadu (Marques, Minderico, Martins, Palmeira, Ekelund in Sardinha, 2016), zato se veliko vlaga v ucinke razlicnih intervencij za povecevanje kolicine in intenzivnosti gibalnih dejavnosti (Ling, Robbins, Wen in Peng, 2015). Raziskave se pogosto usmerjajo v objektivno beleženje in preucevanje kolicine, intenzivnosti in vsebine gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok (Cain, Sallis, Conway, Van Dyck in Calhoon, 2013; Pereira, Cliff, Sousa-Sá, Zhang in Santos, 2019) ter preucevanje dejavnikov, ki nanjo vplivajo (Bingham, Costa, Hinkley, Shire, Clemes in Barber, 2016). Na gibalno dejavnost otrok znotraj programa predšolske vzgoje, tako glede kolicine, intenzivnosti, odmorov, pogostosti gibalnih dejavnosti in vsebine, vplivajo številni dejavniki, in sicer tudi znacilnosti vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti s strani vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelja (Chow, McKenzie in Louie, 2015). Ocena lastne kompetentnosti vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev za vodenje gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok predstavlja enega izmed dejavnikov kakovostnega vodenja dejavnosti. To je odvisno od številnih osebnih lastnosti vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev, splošne in strokovne izobrazbe, predanosti poklicu in delu z otroki ter od drugih dejavnikov (Cugmas, 2009). Zavedanje svoje kompetentnosti lahko vodi k uporabi primernejših metod in oblik izvajanja dejavnosti. Na uporabo razlicnih metod in oblik izvajanja gibalnih dejavnosti se otroci namrec lahko razlicno odzivajo, tudi s kolicino in intenzivnostjo gibalne dejavnosti (Van Cauwenberghe, De Craemer, De Decker, De Bourdeaudhuij in Cardon, 2013; Frank, Flynn, Farnell in Barkley, 2018). Za uspešnost v vzgojiteljskem poklicu je pomembna tudi dobra telesna pripravljenost, saj se pri svojem delu vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji vsakodnevno srecujejo s številnimi obremenitvami (Gregorc, Štihec, Videmšek, Cemic in Meško, 2010). Za vecjo vkljucenost otrok v gibalne dejavnosti v vrtcu je pomemben tudi pozitiven odnos vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelja do gibalnih dejavnosti (Zajec, 2009). McKenzie, LaMaster, Sallis in Marshall (1999) ugotavljajo, da ucitelji, ki so gibalno dejavnejši v svojem prostem casu, promocijo gibalnih dejavnosti med ucenci izvajajo dejavnejše, prav tako ponujajo gibalno bolj dejavne vsebine. Vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji, ki so sami pogosteje gibalno dejavni, tudi pogosteje organizirajo gibalne dejavnosti v vrtcu (Markovšek, 2014). Le redke študije ugotavljajo gibalno dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev ter jo obravnavajo kot dejavnik gibalne dejavnosti otrok. Cheung (2019) ugotavlja, da so predšolski otroci pri gibalno dejavnejših vzgojiteljicah in vzgojiteljih med predšolsko vzgojo izvajali gibalno dejavnost višje intenzivnosti. Vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji se pomena in pomembnosti gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti za otrokov celostni razvoj sicer dobro zavedajo (Gregorc, Štihec, Videmšek, Cemic in Meško, 2010; Sajevic, 2016). Vloga vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelja v procesu vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti v vrtcu je vecplastna, kaže se tudi v njegovem lastnem odnosu do gibalnih dejavnosti, do vloge gibalnih dejavnosti za razvoj otroka, pa tudi v njegovih kompetencah, ki jih ima za podrocje vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti otrok v predšolskem obdobju. Kompetence vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelja predstavljajo zmožnost uporabe znanja, spretnosti, sposobnosti, izkušenj, vešcin, odnosov, osebnostnih lastnosti in motivacije, da posameznik na sebi lasten nacin uspešno opravi pricakovano delo in vlogo (Retar, Plevnik in Kolar, 2013) in se na podrocju vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti izražajo v nacinih dela, pristopih, odnosih, vrstah in oblikah posredovanja vsebin gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskim otrokom (Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, 2017). Kompetentnost prihaja do izraza, ko je njena vsebina postavljena v okvir fizicnega in socialnega okolja, v katerem posameznik opravlja doloceno nalogo. Kompetentnost posameznika dolocajo standardi in zahteve situacije (Kaslow idr., 2007; Hmelak in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, 2016). Zavedanje in ocena lastne kompetentnosti predstavlja le en del uspešnega vodenja vsebin (Kaslow idr., 2007; Kalin, Peklaj, Pecjak, Levpušcek in Zuljan, 2017), tudi na podrocju vodenja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti (Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, 2017; Plevnik in Peternelj, 2019). Zavedanje svoje kompetentnosti, ki vkljucuje tako prepoznavo strokovno mocnih kot šibkejših podrocij vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelja, je pomembno za strokovno nadgrajevanje in bogatitev kompetenc v procesu vseživljenjskega razvoja in ucenja. Teoreticni model strukture kompetenc inovativnega gibalnega poucevanja (Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, 2017) predstavlja podrocja genericnih in strukturo specificnih kompetenc za ucinkovito gibalno poucevanje. Med kljucne specificne kompetence Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec (2017) uvršcata: ucinkovito komuniciranje z otroki, oblikovanje varnega ucnega okolja, razvijanje strategij za motiviranje, ustvarjalno izbiranje didakticnih pripomockov, ucinkovito razvijanje gibalnih sposobnosti, prepoznavanje gibalnih potreb in pricakovanj otrok in njihovo uresnicevanje, prepoznavanje gibalno nadarjenih otrok in prilagajanje njihovim posebnostim, sodelovanje s starši otrok in drugimi osebami, odgovornimi za otroke, sodelovanje s športnimi strokovnjaki ter prenašanje in uvajanje primerov dobrih praks v svoje delo. Namen naše raziskave je bil ugotoviti, kako vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji ocenjujejo svojo kompetentnost za vodenje procesa gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu ter ali predstavlja njihova prostocasna gibalna dejavnost dejavnik njihove zaznave lastne kompetentnosti. Opažamo namrec, da redna prostocasna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev pogosto ni opredeljena kot dejavnik gibalne dejavnosti otrok v programih predšolske vzgoje. Metode Postopki in organizacija zbiranja podatkov Za namen študije smo oblikovali spletni vprašalnik. Uporabili smo nacin priložnostnega, neverjetnostnega vzorcenja. Povezavo smo objavili v vec spletnih strokovnih skupinah in povabili vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelje k izpolnjevanju. Vprašanja so bila oblikovana v vec vsebinsko zaokroženih sklopih, in sicer: (i) osebne znacilnosti, (ii) znacilnosti gibalnih navad, (iii) znacilnosti vrtca, (iv) kompetence za izvajanje razlicnih vsebin dejavnosti v predšolski vzgoji in (v) kompetence za vodenje razlicnih faz gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti. Za nadaljnjo analizo je bilo primerno izpolnjenih 35 % vprašalnikov. Del vprašalnika, ki se je nanašal na oceno kompetenc za posamezne faze vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti (nacrtovanje, organiziranje, izvajanje in vrednotenje), je bil sestavljen iz trditev, ki so jih vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji ocenjevali s pomocjo 6-stopenjske Likertove lestvice, na kateri so stopnje pomenile – ocena 1 (kompetenca ni razvita), 2 (izredno slabo razvita kompetenca), 3 (slabo razvita kompetenca), 4 (razvita kompetenca), 5 (dobro razvita kompetenca) in 6 (odlicno razvita kompetenca). Preverili smo merske znacilnosti vprašalnika. Vsebinsko veljavnost smo zagotovili tako, da smo vprašalnik sestavili na podlagi teoreticnih izhodišc in pregleda objavljenih raziskav (Erculj idr., 2008; Zajec, 2009; Retar, Plevnik in Kolar, 2013; Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, 2017; Marinšek, Jurak in Kovac, 2019). Zagotavljanju objektivnosti smo sledili z jasnimi navodili za izpolnjevanje. Svojo gibalno/športno dejavnost so vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji ocenili subjektivno, in sicer je kriterij gibalne dejavnosti predstavljalo izvajanje redne oblike gibalne/športne dejavnosti, vsaj 2-krat tedensko po najmanj 60 minut. Veljavnost dela vprašalnika, ki se nanaša na oceno kompetenc, smo preverili z metodo faktorske analize, s katero smo skupaj pojasnili 73,83 % variance. Obcutljivost smo zagotovili z ustreznim številom stopenj odgovorov za oceno kompetenc. Zanesljivost vprašalnika smo testirali z Cronbachovim alfa koeficientom, ki je pokazal zadostno zanesljivost celotnega vprašalnika v delu ocenjevanja kompetenc (a = 0,871), kot tudi po posameznih fazah vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti (a vrednosti od 0,853 do 0,950). Vrednost Kaiser-Meyer-Olkinovega preizkusa (KMO) je znašala 0,941, kar potrjuje vrednost vzorcenja, saj je KMO višja od priporocene (KMO vsaj 0,60). Bartlettov preizkus sfericnosti je pokazal, da so povezave med spremenljivkami dovolj visoke (p < 0,001), zato so podatki primerni za analizo. Na podlagi izracuna komunalitet (deleža variance postavk, ki je pojasnjen s skupnimi faktorji), smo ugotovili, da nobena od komunalitet ni nižja od priporocene vrednosti 0,20 (Child, 2006). Vzorec Vzorec raziskave predstavlja 177 oseb (98,3 % vzgojiteljic in 1,7 % vzgojiteljev), ki so ustrezno izpolnile vprašalnik (preglednica 2). Zaradi majhnega deleža oseb anketirancev moškega spola, vzorca po spolu v analizi nismo locevali. Preglednica 2: Znacilnosti vzorca Skupina Velikost Starost (let) Cas zaposlitve (let) n % AS SD AS SD Gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji 117 66,1 38,8 10,6 14,6 12,98 Gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji 60 33,9 38,4 10,3 15,07 12,31 Skupaj 177 100 38,7 10,5 14,8 12,7 Legenda: AS: aritmeticna sredina; SD: standardni odklon; n: število oseb; %: odstotek vzorca Glede na kraj zaposlitve je 57 % anketiranih zaposlenih v mestnem vrtcu, 13,4 % v primestnem in 27,9 % v vaškem vrtcu. Z otroki prve starostne skupine dela 39 % ter z otroki druge starostne skupine 61 % anketiranih. Znacilnosti njihovega zaposlitvenega statusa so bile naslednje: 84,9 % anketiranih je imelo pogodbo za nedolocen cas, 12,9 % pogodbo za dolocen cas, 1,1 % pa drugo obliko zaposlitve. Izobrazbene znacilnosti so bile naslednje: 34,1 % anketiranih ima koncano srednješolsko izobrazbo, 6,3 % višješolsko, 37,5 % visokošolsko, 19,3 % univerzitetno izobrazbo ter 2,8 % zakljucen magisterij. Znacilnosti delovnih mest so bile: 63,8 % anketiranih je bilo zaposlenih na delovnem mestu vzgojiteljica/vzgojitelj, 28,2 % pomocnica/pomocnik vzgojiteljice/vzgojitelja ter 7,9 % v strokovnem vodstvu. Gibalno dejavni in nedejavni anketirani se po starosti in trajanju zaposlitve niso statisticno znacilno razlikovali (preglednica 2). Metode analize podatkov Podatki so bili analizirani s programom IBM SPSS 23. Uporabili smo metode opisne statistike ter po testiranju predpostavk statisticnih testov .2-test in Mann-Whitneyjev U-test za analizo razlik. Kot mero velikosti ucinka smo uporabili koeficient r (r = z/vN), pri cemer predstavlja vrednost 0,1 majhen, 0,3 srednji in 0,5 velik ucinek (Fritz, Morris in Richler, 2012). Statisticno znacilnost smo ugotavljali na ravni tveganja p < 0,05. Rezultati so predstavljeni kot aritmeticna sredina ± standardni odklon (AS ± SD), v primeru analize z neparametricnimi testi pa kot povprecje rangov. Rezultati Za gibalno dejavne se je opredelilo 117 anketiranih (66,1 %), kot gibalno nedejavne 60 anketiranih (33,9 %), pri cemer je kriterij gibalne dejavnosti predstavljalo izvajanje redne oblike prostocasne gibalne/športne dejavnosti, vsaj 2-krat tedensko po najmanj 60 minut. Preverili smo raven njihove gibalne dejavnosti glede na njihovo preteklo vkljucenostjo v organiziran proces gibalne/športne vadbe. V skupini gibalno dejavnih jih 39 % navaja preteklo vkljucenost v redno organiziran proces gibalne/športne vadbe, 27,1 % vkljucenosti ne navaja. V skupini gibalno nedejavnih anketiranih jih 18,6 % vkljucenost v redno organiziran proces gibalne/športne vadbe navaja, 42,4 % pa vkljucenosti ne navaja. Trenutna redna gibalna dejavnost anketiranih ni povezana z njihovo preteklo vkljucenostjo v redno organiziran proces gibalne/športne vadbe .2(1) = 0,257, p = 0,612. V povprecju vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji svojo kompetentnost za razvoj dejavnosti na podrocju gibanja, opredeljenem v Kurikulumu za vrtce (Bahovec idr., 1999), v primerjavi z drugimi podrocji ocenjujejo kot najvišjo. Izrazite razlike se pokažejo po skupinah gibalno dejavnih in nedejavnih. Pri gibalno dejavnih anketiranih zaznamo med vsemi podrocji oceno svoje kompetence za razvoj gibanja otrok kot najvišjo, pri gibalno nedejavnih anketiranih pa kot najnižjo (U = 1601,5; p < 0,001; r = 0,27) (preglednica 3). Preglednica 3: Ocena kompetentnosti za izvajanje vsebin podrocij dejavnosti v predšolski vzgoji Podrocje dejavnosti Skupaj Gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji Gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji U p r AS SD Povprecje rangov Povprecje rangov Gibanje 4,87 0,9 81,82 57,53 1601,5 < 0,001 0,27 Jezik 4,84 0,82 76,36 66,62 2056 0,152 Narava 4,82 0,9 75,51 69,65 2207,5 0,401 Družba 4,79 0,82 77,19 66,41 2045,5 0,118 Umetnost 4,76 0,86 75,20 70,24 2237 0,473 Matematika 4,66 0,96 75,25 70,14 2232 0,462 Legenda: AS: aritmeticna sredina; SD: standardni odklon; p: statisticna znacilnost razlik; U: velikost Mann-Whitneyjev U; r: velikost ucinka Vodenje procesa športnih dejavnosti obsega nacrtovanje, organiziranje, izvajanje, spremljanje in vrednotenje procesa športne vadbe (ZSpo-1, 2017). V okviru predšolske vzgoje vodenje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti sicer ne predstavlja procesa športne vadbe, navaja pa Kurikulum za vrtce (Bahovec idr., 1999) nacelo strokovne utemeljenosti kurikuluma, tudi z vidika spoznanj znanstvenih ved, ki opredeljujejo podrocja dejavnosti v vrtcu. V nadaljevanju bomo tako predstavili posamezne kompetence po posameznih fazah vodenja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti. Obe skupini anketiranih z vidika nacrtovanja ocenjujeta kompetenco oblikovanja posamezne ucne ure kot najvišjo, vendar prihaja do statisticno pomembne razlike v oceni (U = 1853,5; p = 0,01; r = 0,21). Kot najnižje ocenjeno kompetenco obe skupini ocenjujeta kompetenco priprave letnega programa gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti (preglednica 4). Preglednica 4: Ocena kompetentnosti za vodenje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika nacrtovanja Kompetence za vodenje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika nacrtovanja Skupaj Gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji Gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji U p r AS SD Povprecje rangov Povprecje rangov Znam oblikovati ucno pripravo za uro gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti. 5,07 0,88 80,19 62,34 1853,5 0,01 0,21 Znam nacrtovati program gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti z didakticnega vidika. 4,74 0,95 80,20 58,03 1626,5 0,001 0,27 Znam nacrtovati program gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti z organizacijskega vidika. 4,71 0,94 81,13 59,28 1697,5 0,002 0,26 Znam prepoznati gibalno nadarjene otroke ter prilagajati delo njihovim posebnostim. 4,71 0,96 80,16 61,10 1790 0,006 0,23 Znam nacrtovati svoj strokovni razvoj in vseživljenjsko ucenje. 4,68 0,98 78,13 61,91 1820,5 0,019 0,19 Znam prepoznati otroke s posebnostmi v gibalnem razvoju in prilagajati delo njihovim posebnostim. 4,68 0,95 77,71 62,08 1804 0,004 0,24 Znam nacrtovati program gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti s kolicinskega vidika. 4,6 0,94 81,34 58,89 1677,5 0,001 0,27 Znam pripraviti letni program gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti. 4,43 1,04 77,71 65,66 2022,5 0,084 Legenda: AS: aritmeticna sredina; SD: standardni odklon; p: statisticna znacilnost razlik; U: velikost Mann-Whitneyjev U; r: velikost ucinka Preglednica 5: Ocena kompetentnosti za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika organiziranja Kompetence za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika organiziranja Skupaj Gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji Gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji U p r AS SD Povprecje rangov Povprecje rangov Znam organizirati gibalne/športne dejavnosti v naravi. 5,07 0,82 77,81 63,86 1918 0,034 0,17 Sposoben/-na sem organizirati izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti. 5,06 0,84 80,03 61,33 1802 0,006 0,23 Sposoben/-na sem organizirati sodelovanje s starši. 5,05 0,89 75,61 63,94 1922 0,075 Sposoben/-na sem organizirati sodelovanje s svojim delovnim okoljem. 5,04 0,76 74,59 69,97 2223,5 0,489 Znam organizirati didakticne gibalne/športne igre. 5,03 0,77 78,05 63,41 1895,5 0,026 0,18 Znam izbrati primernost gibalnih nalog glede na materialne pogoje dela. 5,03 0,77 78,54 64,11 1943,5 0,030 0,14 Znam izbrati zahtevnost gibalnih nalog, ki so primerne otrokovemu individualnemu razvoju. 4,86 0,89 78,09 64,95 1986,5 0,051 Legenda: AS: aritmeticna sredina; SD: standardni odklon; p: statisticna znacilnost razlik; U: velikost Mann Whitneyjev U, r: velikost ucinka Najvišje ocenjena kompetenca z vidika organiziranja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti je kompetenca organiziranja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v naravi, v oceni katere se obe skupini statisticno znacilno razlikujeta (U = 1918; p = 0,034; r = 0,17). Gibalna dejavnost anketiranih ni dejavnik, ki bi bil povezan z organizacijo sodelovanja s starši in sodelovanja z delovnim okoljem. Prav tako ni povezan z zmožnostjo izbire zahtevnosti primernih gibalnih nalog (preglednica 5). Vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji se statisticno znacilno razlikujejo v oceni svoje kompetence znanja izbire primernih gibalnih nalog glede na materialne pogoje dela .2(2) = 12,880, p = 0,002. Vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji, ki imajo v svojem delovnem okolju na voljo vec opreme za izvajanje gibalne dejavnosti, omenjeno kompetenco ocenjujejo višje. Preglednica 6: Ocena kompetentnosti za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika izvajanja Kompetence za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika izvajanja Skupaj Gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji Gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji U p r AS SD Povprecje rangov Povprecje rangov Sposoben/-na sem zagotoviti varnost otrok. 5,3 0,72 78,51 64,17 1946,5 0,030 0,18 Znam spodbujati otrokov napredek. 5,27 0,66 79,26 62,76 1875 0,011 0,21 Zmorem vzpostaviti varno, prijetno in zaupljivo vzdušje. 5,25 0,71 77,68 64,11 1930,5 0,042 0,17 Sposoben/-na sem ustvariti dobro sodelovalno ozracje. 5,12 0,77 79,57 62,20 1846 0,011 0,21 Znam motivirati otroka s primernimi ucnimi športnimi pripomocki. 5,11 0,74 77,92 63,93 1934,5 0,034 0,18 Znam poskrbeti za obvladovanje zmage in poraza pri otrocih. 5,05 0,76 79,89 61,60 1815,5 0,007 0,23 Zmorem izvesti gibalne/športne aktivnosti, ki razvijajo gibalne sposobnosti otroka. 5,0 0,81 79,57 62,19 1845,5 0,008 0,22 Znam prenesti v prakso teoreticna didakticna znanja. 4,86 0,78 79,55 62,24 1848 0,009 0,22 Obvladam demonstracijo gibalnih/športnih aktivnosti. 4,79 0,95 79,45 62,42 1857,5 0,014 0,2 Znam uporabljati inovativne ucno-vzgojne pristope. 4,79 0,84 76,88 65,84 2032 0,105 Legenda: AS: aritmeticna sredina; SD: standardni odklon; p: statisticna znacilnost razlik; U: velikost Mann-Whitneyjev U; r: velikost ucinka Najvišje ocenjena kompetenca z vidika izvajanja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti, tudi v primerjavi z drugimi vidiki, je kompetenca zagotavljanja varnosti (preglednica 6). V oceni kompetence zagotavljanja varnosti se skupini gibalno dejavnih in nedejavnih anketiranih sicer statisticno znacilno razlikujeta (U = 1946,5; p = 0,030; r = 0,18). Najnižje ocenjena kompetenca v skupini gibalno nedejavnih je kompetenca sposobnosti demonstracije izvedbe gibalnih nalog (U = 1857,5; p = 0,014; r = 0,2). Statisticno znacilno se razlikujejo v oceni svoje kompetence znanja motiviranja otroka s primernimi ucnimi športnimi pripomocki (.2(2) = 7,745, p = 0,021) tudi glede na dejavnik opreme, ki je na voljo za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v delovnem okolju. Pri anketiranih z vecjo možnostjo izbire opreme zaznamo omenjeno kompetenco ocenjeno više. Preglednica 7: Ocena kompetentnosti za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika vrednotenja Kompetence za izvajanje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti v vrtcu z vidika vrednotenja Skupaj Gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji Gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji U p r AS SD Povprecje rangov Povprecje rangov Znam prepoznati otrokov gibalni napredek. 4,98 0,82 82,29 57,13 1587,5 0,001 0,31 Znam ustrezno nagraditi otrokov gibalni napredek. 4,77 0,96 79,89 61,60 1815,5 0,008 0,22 Zmorem samokriticno oceniti svoje delo. 4,77 0,85 81,31 57,69 1616 0,001 0,29 Sem usposobljen/-a izmeriti otrokov gibalni napredek. 4,19 1,14 79,11 63,05 1889,5 0,023 0,19 Legenda: AS: aritmeticna sredina; SD: standardni odklon; p: statisticna znacilnost razlik; U: velikost Mann-Whitneyjev U; r: velikost ucinka Z vidika vrednotenja procesa gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti obe skupini anketiranih najvišje ocenjujeta kompetenco sposobnosti prepoznave gibalnega napredka otroka (U = 1587,5; p < 0,001; r = 0,31) ter kot najnižje sposobnosti objektivne ocene oziroma izmere napredka v gibalnem razvoju otrok (U = 1889,5; p = 0,023; r = 0,19) (preglednica 7). Razprava Glavni namen predstavljene študije je bil ugotoviti, ali prostocasna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev predstavlja dejavnik subjektivne zaznave njihovih lastnih kompetenc za vodenje gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. Rezultati kažejo, da gibalno dejavnejše vzgojiteljice in dejavnejši vzgojitelji svoje kompetence za razvoj podrocja gibanja kot podrocja dejavnosti v predšolski vzgoji ocenjujejo statisticno znacilno višje, prav tako ocenjujejo višje tudi vecino kompetenc po posameznih fazah vodenja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti. Obe skupini, tako redno gibalno dejavnih kot nedejavnih vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev, kot najvišje ocenjeno kompetenco ocenjujejo kompetenco zagotavljanja varnosti otrok. Ugotovitev je skladna tudi z rezultati raziskave, ki sta jo opravila Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec (2017). Kot najnižje ocenjeno obe skupini anketiranih opredeljujeta kompetenco sposobnosti izmere gibalnega napredka otrok. Rezultati nakazujejo, da je redna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev povezana z njihovo zaznavo kompetenc za vodenje gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. Pomembna razlika se kaže pri oceni kompetenc za razvoj posameznih podrocjih dejavnosti v predšolski vzgoji, kjer gibalno dejavne vzgojiteljice in dejavni vzgojitelji ocenjujejo kompetenco za razvoj gibanja otrok, opredeljeno kot podrocje v Kurikulumu za vrtce, kot najvišjo, gibalno nedejavne vzgojiteljice in nedejavni vzgojitelji pa kot najnižjo. Gibanje je med vsemi podrocji dejavnosti v predšolski vzgoji edino, kjer prihaja do statisticno pomembnih razlik v oceni kompetenc med skupinama gibalno dejavnih in gibalno nedejavnih anketiranih. Najvišje ocenjene kompetence obeh skupin so sposobnost oblikovanja posamezne ucne ure gibalne/športne dejavnosti, organizacija izvedbe in dejavnosti v naravi, zagotavljanje varnosti ter prepoznava otrokovega gibalnega napredka, se pa skupini razlikujeta v oceni kompetenc po posameznih vidikih vodenja. Dejavniki, ki pozitivno vplivajo na otrokov razvoj, so razlicni (Cugmas, 2009). To so varno in zdravo okolje, vkljucenost v razvojno primerne in spodbudne dejavnosti, interakcije z odraslimi, možnosti za socialno delovanje ter razvoj komunikacijskih spretnosti. Pomen nekaterih omenjenih dejavnikov za spodbuden gibalni razvoj otroka v teoreticnem modelu strukture kompetenc gibalnega poucevanja predstavljata tudi Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec (2017). Rezultati naše raziskave kažejo, da so nekatere kljucne specificne kompetence za vodenje procesa gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok, in sicer ne glede na dejavnik gibalne dejavnosti vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev ocenjene zelo visoko. To kaže, da se vzgojiteljice in vzgojitelji zavedajo izrednega pomena vzpostavitve varnega okolja. Med kljucne specificne kompetence omenjena avtorja uvršcata tudi sodelovanje s starši otrok in drugimi osebami, odgovornimi za otroke. Rezultati kažejo, da pri gibalno dejavnih in gibalno nedejavnih anketiranih pri oceni omenjene kompetence ne zaznamo razlik. Najnižje ocenjena kompetenca v skupini gibalno nedejavnih z vidika izvajanja gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti je kompetenca sposobnosti demonstracije izvedbe gibalnih nalog. Demonstracija gibanja ima v predšolskem obdobju pomembno vlogo, ne izraža le demonstracije gibanja, ampak gre za nacin sporazumevanja med vzgojiteljico ali vzgojiteljem in otroki ter med otroki samimi (Videmšek in Pišot, 2007). Kompetenco ucinkovitega komuniciranja z otroki Retar in Lepicnik - Vodopivec (2017) uvršcata med kljucne specificne kompetence za vodenje procesa gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. Vrednosti velikosti ucinkov razlik med gibalno dejavnimi in gibalno nedejavnimi anketiranimi (r = 0,14 do r = 0,33) kažejo, da so ugotovljeni ucinki majhni do srednji, kar nakazuje statisticno moc dejavnika gibalne dejavnosti vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev za subjektivno oceno lastne kompetentnosti vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti predšolskih otrok. Raziskav, v katerih bi kot dejavnik objektivno izmerjene gibalne dejavnosti otrok v casu predšolske vzgoje upoštevali tudi objektivno izmerjeno prostocasno gibalno dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev, nismo zasledili. Sami svojo prostocasno gibalno dejavnost v vecini raziskav ocenjujejo subjektivno (Prašnikar, 2011; Markovšek, 2014). Študije sicer nakazujejo odstopanja v objektivni izmeri in subjektivni oceni gibalne dejavnosti (Dyrstad, Hansen, Holme in Anderssen, 2014). Kot uvodoma omenjeno, se vzgojitelji pomena in pomembnosti gibalnih dejavnosti za otrokov celostni razvoj dobro zavedajo (Gregorc, Štihec, Videmšek, Cemic in Meško, 2010; Sajevic, 2016). Opažamo pomanjkanje raziskav, ki bi objektivno spremljale gibalno dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev ter pridobljene rezultate upoštevale kot dejavnik gibalnih dejavnosti otrok v programih predšolske vzgoje. Sklep Študija vsebuje omejitve, predvsem nereprezentativnost vzorca in subjektivnost ocene ter vrednotenja redne gibalne dejavnosti in samozaznanih kompetenc. Kljub temu z ugotovitvami študije lahko poudarimo pomen redne prostocasne gibalne dejavnosti vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev, posredno tudi za gibalno dejavnost predšolskih otrok. Rezultati sami po sebi ne nakazujejo, da prostocasna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev predstavlja dejavnik, ki je povezan s kolicino, intenzivnostjo ali vsebino gibalnih dejavnosti otrok. Nakazujejo pa, da gibalno dejavnejše vzgojiteljice in dejavnejši vzgojitelji izkazujejo vecjo stopnjo zaznane kompetentnosti za vodenje, s tem pa tudi za izbiro oblik, metod in nacinov izvajanja gibalnih dejavnosti. Opažamo pomanjkanje študij, ki bi prostocasno gibalno dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev upoštevale kot dejavnik gibalnega udejstvovanja otrok v predšolski vzgoji. V prihodnje bi zato kot enega izmed dejavnikov gibalnih/športnih dejavnosti otrok v predšolski vzgoji veljalo upoštevati tudi prostocasno gibalno dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev ter dejavnik tudi objektivno spremljati in vrednotiti. Kljucna naloga vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev na podrocju gibalnega razvoja otrok je ponuditi otroku spodbudno okolje in vsebine ter ga s svojim zgledom motivirati za gibalno/športno dejavnost. Redna gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev ni pomembna zgolj zaradi njihove zaznave lastnih kompetenc na podrocju vodenja gibalnih dejavnosti v vrtcu, temvec tudi kot dejavnik zdravja in splošne kakovosti življenja. Summary The preschool period is an important period for the formation of physical activity habits and patterns (Janz, Burns & Levy, 2005). Physical activity in early childhood has an overall effect on the child’s development, with a significant impact on physical, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular and cognitive development (Timmons et al., 2012; LeBlanc et al., 2012). Therefore, the development of movement, as one fields of activity in kindergarten, is of particular importance. A child’s movement activity in the early years of their life provides the basis for movement activities later in adulthood and has a significant influence on the factors of health in adulthood (Timmons et al., 2012). The purpose of our study was to determine how preschool teachers evaluate their competence for leading the process of physical activity in kindergartens and whether their physical activity is a factor that influences their perception of their own competence. We noted that the leisure-time activity of preschool teachers is often not defined as a factor affecting the physical activity of children in preschool programmes. One hundred and seventz-seven preschool teachers, aged from 20 to 59 years, participated in the study. For the data collection on self-assessed physical activity and the subjective assessment of competence for leading the process of physical activity among preschool children, we used a web questionnaire. The data was analysed with IBM SPSS 23.0, using methods of descriptive statistics and .2 test and Mann-Whitney U test for the analysis of differences. We used the coefficient r (r = z / vN) as the measure of effect size, representing 0.1 small, 0.3 medium and 0.5 large effects (Fritz, Morris & Richler, 2012). The statistical significance was set at an alpha level p <0.05. The results show that physically more active preschool teachers assess their competence for the development of the field of movement at a level statistically significantly higher (U = 1601.5; p <0.001; r = 0.27). A physically active preschool teacher evaluates the competence for developing the field of movement as the highest, and an inactive one as the lowest. Among all fields of activity in preschool education, movement is the only one where there are statistically significant differences in the assessment of competence between groups of physically active and non-active preschool teachers. Physically active preschool teachers evaluate more highly their competences for planning, organising, implementing and evaluating physical activities. The highest assessed competency is the ability to provide safety, and the lowest is the ability to measure progress in children’s movement. The highest assessed competences of both groups according to the stages of the physical activity process are the ability to design individual lessons, the organisation of activities in nature, ensuring safety and the recognition of progress in children’s movement. The groups differ in the assessment of competences according to the physical activity process. The results show that physically more active preschool teachers evaluate more highly (to a statistically significant degree) their competences for the development of the field of movement and for leading the process of physical activity. Thus, the results do not indicate that the leisure-time activity of educators affects the amount, intensity or content of the physical activity of children. They do suggest, however, that more active preschool teachers show a greater degree of perceived competence in leadership, and thus also for the selection of forms and methods for performing physical activity. The key objective of a preschool teacher in the field of movement development is to offer a child a stimulating environment and content, and to motivate them for physical activity. Regular leisure-time physical activity of preschool teachers is important not only because of their perception of their own competence but also as a factor affecting their health and their overall quality of life. Literatura Bahovec, E. D., Bregar, K. G., Cas, M., Domicelj, M., Saje - Hribar, N., Japelj, B., Jontes, B., Kastelic, L., Kranjc, S., Marjanovic Umek, L., Matijašic Požar, N., Vonta, T., in Vršcaj, D. (1999). Kurikulum za vrtce. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport: Zavod RS za šolstvo. Barnett, L. M., Ridgers, N. D., in Salmon, J. (2015). Associations between young children's perceived and actual ball skill competence and physical activity. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(2), 167–171. Bingham, D. D., Costa, S., Hinkley, T., Shire, K. A., Clemes, S. A., in Barber, S. E. (2016). Physical activity during the early years: a systematic review of correlates and determinants. American journal of preventive medicine, 51(3), 384–402. Cain, K. L., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Van Dyck, D., in Calhoon, L. (2013). Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: a review of methods. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 10(3), 437–450. Cheung, P. (2019). Teachers as role models for physical activity: Are preschool children more active when their teachers are active?. European Physical Education Review. 26(1), 101-110. Child, D. (2006). The Essentials of Factor Analysis (3rd Edition). London: New York: Continuum. Chow, B. C., McKenzie, T. L., in Louie, L. (2015). Children’s physical activity and associated variables during preschool physical education. Advances in Physical Education, 5(1), 39–49. Cugmas, Z. (2009). Kakovost vrtca in otrokova navezanost na vzgojiteljico. Sodobna pedagogika, 60(3), 40–54. Dyrstad, S. M., Hansen, B. H., Holme, I. M. in Anderssen, S. A. (2014). Comparison of self-reported versus accelerometer-measured physical activity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(1), 99–106. Erculj, J., Ivanuš - Grmek, M., Lepicnik - Vodopivec, J., Musek - Lešnik, K., Retar, I., Sardoc, M., in Vršnik-Perše, T. (2008). Razvoj metodoloških inštrumentov za ugotavljanja in spremljanje profesionalnega razvoja vzgojiteljev, uciteljev in ravnateljev: evalvacija vzgoje in izobraževanja v RS: projekt: preliminarna študija. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Figueroa, R., in An, R. (2017). Motor skill competence and physical activity in preschoolers: A review. Maternal and child health journal, 21(1), 136–146. Foweather, L., Knowles, Z., Ridgers, N. D., O’Dwyer, M. V., Foulkes, J. D., in Stratton, G. (2015). Fundamental movement skills in relation to weekday and weekend physical activity in preschool children. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 18(6), 691–696. Frank, M. L., Flynn, A., Farnell, G. S., in Barkley, J. E. (2018). The differences in physical activity levels in preschool children during free play recess and structured play recess. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 16(1), 37–42. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., in Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 141(1), 2. Gregorc, J., Štihec, J., Videmšek, M., Cemic, A., in Meško, M. (2012). The quality of kindergarten care as an important element of the subjective theories. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica 42(1): 17–25. Hesketh, K. D., in Campbell, K. J. (2010). Interventions to prevent obesity in 0–5 year olds: an updated systematic review of the literature. Obesity, 18(S1), S27–S35. Hmelak, M., in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, J. (2015). Izbrane teme predšolske pedagogike: izzivi predšolske pedagogike na zacetku 21. stoletja. Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središce, Univerzitetna založba Annales. Jancic, J., in Planinšec, J. (2018). Primerjava športnih dejavnosti ucencev iz Maribora in Novega Sada. Revija za Elementarno Izobrazevanje, 11(4), 329–340. Janz, K. F., Burns, T. L., in Levy, S. M. (2005). Tracking of activity and sedentary behaviors in childhood: the Iowa Bone Development Study. American journal of preventive medicine, 29(3), 171–178. Kalin, J., Peklaj, C., Pecjak, S., Levpušcek, M. P., in Zuljan, M. V. (2017). Elementary and secondary school students’ perceptions of teachers’ classroom management competencies. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(4), 37–62. Kaslow, N. J., Rubin, N. J., Bebeau, M. J., Leigh, I. W., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., Portnoy, Sanford, M., in Smith, I. L. (2007). Guiding principles and recommendations for the assessment of competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 441. LeBlanc, A. G., Spence, J. C., Carson, V., Connor Gorber, S., Dillman, C., Janssen, I., Kho, E. Michelle, Stearns A., J., Timmons, W. B. in Tremblay, M. S. (2012). Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in the early years (aged 0–4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 37(4), 753–772. Ling, J., Robbins, L. B., Wen, F., in Peng, W. (2015). Interventions to increase physical activity in children aged 2–5 years: a systematic review. Pediatric Exercise Science, 27(3), 314–333. Lemos, A. G., Avigo, E. L., in Barela, J. A. (2012). Physical education in kindergarten promotes fundamental motor skill development. Advances in Physical Education, 2(1), 17–21. Marinšek, M., Jurak, G., in Kovac, M. (2019). Differences in Beliefs Regarding Physical Education Between Slovenian In-Service and Pre-Service Early Childhood Educators. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(2), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2019.1676333. Markovšek, P. (2014). Gibalna dejavnost vzgojiteljev. Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta. Marques, A., Minderico, C., Martins, S., Palmeira, A., Ekelund, U., in Sardinha, L. B. (2016). Cross-sectional and prospective associations between moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time with adiposity in children. International Journal of Obesity, 40(1), 28. McKenzie, T. L., LaMaster, K. J., Sallis, J. F., in Marshall, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers’ leisure physical activity and their conduct of physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(1), 126–132. Pereira, J. R., Cliff, D. P., Sousa-Sá, E., Zhang, Z, in Santos, R. (2019). Prevalence of objectively measured sedentary behavior in early years: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 29(3), 308–328. Pišot, R. in Jelovcan, G. (2012). Vsebine gibalne/športne vzgoje v predšolskem obdobju. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središce, Založba Annales. Pišot, R., in Planinšec, J. (2005). Struktura motorike v zgodnjem otroštvu. Koper: Založba Annales. Plevnik, M., in Peternelj, T. (2019). Gibalna/športna (ne)aktivnost vzgojiteljic in njihova kompetentnost za razvoj gibanja predšolskih otrok v prvem starostnem obdobju. V S. Cotar Konrad, B. Borota, S. Rutar, K. Drljic in G. Jelovcan (ur.), Vzgoja in izobraževanje predšolskih otrok prvega starostnega obdobja (str. 399–410). Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem. Prašnikar, A. (2011). Povezanost gibalnih/športnih aktivnosti vzgojiteljic v povezavi z izbranimi dejavniki zdravega nacina življenja. Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta. Retar, I., in Lepicnik - Vodopivec, J. (2017). Kompetentnost vzgojiteljev za inovativno gibalno poucevanje. Pedagoška obzorja: casopis za didaktiko in metodiko 32(1): 17–32. Retar, I., Plevnik, M., in Kolar, E. (2013). Key competences of Slovenian sport managers. Annales kinesiologiae 4(2): 81–94. Roscoe, C. M., James, R. S., in Duncan, M. J. (2019). Accelerometer-based physical activity levels, fundamental movement skills and weight status in British preschool children from a deprived area. European journal of pediatrics, 178(7), 1043–1052. Sajevic, M. (2016). Zavedanje vzgojiteljev o pomenu gibalnih/športnih aktivnosti za otrokov celostni razvoj. Diplomska naloga. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta. Timmons, B. W., LeBlanc, A. G., Carson, V., Connor Gorber, S., Dillman, C., Janssen, I., Kho, M. E., Spence, J. C., Stearns, J. A., in Tremblay, M. S. (2012). Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years (aged 0–4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 37(4), 773–792. Van Cauwenberghe, E., De Craemer, M., De Decker, E., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. in Cardon, G. (2013). The impact of a teacher-led structured physical activity session on preschoolers’ sedentary and physical activity levels. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 16(5), 422–426. Videmšek, M., Pišot, R. (2007). Šport za najmlajše. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport, Inštitut za šport. World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. Geneva: World Health Organization. Zajec, J. (2009). Povezanost športne dejavnosti predšolskih otrok in njihovih staršev z izbranimi dejavniki zdravega nacina življenja. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani: Fakulteta za šport. Zakon o športu (ZSpo-1) (2017). Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za izobraževanje, znanost in šport (Uradni list RS, št. 29/17 in 21/18). Avtor / Author Matej Plevnik, PhD Docent, Univerza na Primorskem, Fakulteta za vede o zdravju, Katedra za kineziologijo, Polje 42, 6310 Izola, Slovenija, e-pošta: matej.plevnik@fvz.upr.si Assistant professor, University of Primorska, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Kinesiology, Polje 42, 6310 Izola, Slovenia, e-mail: matej.plevnik@fvz.upr.si NAVODILA AVTORJEM Osnovni namen revije je povezati širok spekter teoreticnih izhodišc in prakticnih rešitev v izobraževanju ter tako spodbujati razlicne metodološke in vsebinske razprave. Uredniški odbor združuje strokovnjake in raziskovalce iz vec evropskih držav in s tem želi ustvariti možnosti za živahen dialog med raznovrstnimi disciplinami in razlicnimi evropskimi praksami, povezanimi z izobraževanjem. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje torej objavlja prispevke, ki obravnavajo pomembna, sodobna vprašanja na podrocju vzgoje in izobraževanja, uporabljajo primerno znanstveno metodologijo ter so slogovno in jezikovno ustrezni. Odražati morajo pomemben prispevek k znanosti oziroma spodbudo za raziskovanje na podrocju vzgoje in izobraževanja z vidika drugih povezanih ved, kot so kognitivna psihologija, razvoj otroka, uporabno jezikoslovje in druge discipline. Revija sprejema še neobjavljene clanke, ki niso bili istocasno poslani v objavo drugim revijam. Prispevki so lahko v slovenskem, angleškem ali nemškem jeziku. Sprejemanje clankov v objavo Prejete prispevke najprej pregleda urednik/založniški odbor in ugotovi, ali vsebinsko ustrezajo konceptu in kriterijem revije. 1. Ce prispevek ustreza konceptu in kriterijem revije, ga uredniški odbor pošlje dvema anonimnima recenzentoma. Clanek, ki je vsebinsko skladen s konceptom revije, vendar ne ustreza drugim kriterijem, lahko uredništvo vrne avtorju, da ga popravi. 2. O sprejemu ali zavrnitvi clanka je avtor obvešcen približno tri mesece po njegovem prejemu. 3. Avtor dobi recenzirani prispevek vkljucno z morebitnimi priporocili za izboljšave/popravke, v primeru zavrnitve pa z navedenimi razlogi zanjo. 4. Koncno odlocitev o objavi clanka sprejme urednik na temelju priporocil recenzentov. Pri tem utemeljitve za svojo odlocitev ni dolžan navesti. 5. Besedilo prispevka mora biti pripravljeno v skladu z Navodili avtorjem. 6. Avtor jamci, da so v prispevku predstavljeni podatki natancni, verodostojni in izvirni. Ko je clanek sprejet v objavo, avtor podpiše Izjavo o eticnosti raziskovanja in Izjavo avtorja o izvirnosti prispevka. Vsi prispevki gredo skozi postopek za ugotavljanje plagiatorstva. Navodila za oblikovanje besedila Pri pripravi besedila prispevka upoštevajte naslednja navodila: 1. Tipkopis oddajte kot dokument v programu Microsoft Word. Nabor pisave je Times New Roman, velikost crk 12 za osnovno besedilo in 10 za povzetka v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku, literaturo in citate, ce so daljši od 3 vrstic, razmik med vrsticami pa je 1,5. Vodilni naslovi naj bodo zapisani krepko, prvi podnaslovi ležece, drugi podnaslovi pa navadno. Naslovov in strani ne številcite in ne uporabljajte velikih tiskanih crk. 2. Besedilo prispevka naj ne presega 8.000 besed, vkljucno s povzetki, literaturo in kljucnimi besedami. 3. Naslov prispevka naj ne presega 15 besed in naj bo v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku. 4. Prispevek naj ima na zacetku povzetek v slovenskem jeziku ter njegov prevod v angleškem jeziku (oziroma obratno) in naj ne presega 100 besed. Za povzetkom naj bo 5 kljucnih besed. Poleg povzetkov naj prispevek na koncu prispevka, pred literaturo, vsebuje daljši povzetek (500-700 besed) v anglešcini, ce je clanek napisan v slovenšcini. 5. V prispevku ne uporabljajte ne sprotnih ne koncnih opomb. 6. Vire navajajte v skladu s standardom APA (American Psychological Association) standardom. V literaturo vkljucite samo v tekocem besedilu navedene vire, ki jih uredite po abecednem vrstnem redu. 7. V posebnem dokumentu pošljite naslednje podatke: ime in priimek avtorja, akademski naziv, organizacijo, kjer je avtor zaposlen, elektronski naslov, naslov bivališca in naslov prispevka. Primeri: Knjige: priimek, zacetnica imena avtorja, leto izida, naslov, kraj, založba. Duh, M. (2004). Vrednotenje kot didakticni problem pri likovni vzgoji. Maribor: Pedagoška fakulteta. Clanki v revijah: priimek, zacetnica imena avtorja, leto izida, naslov prispevka, ime revije, letnik, številka, strani. Planinšec, J. (2002). Športna vzgoja in medpredmetne povezave v osnovni šoli. Šport, 50 (1), 11–15. Prispevki v zbornikih: priimek, zacetnica imena avtorja, leto izida, naslov prispevka, podatki o knjigi ali zborniku, strani, kraj, založba. Fošnaric, S. (2002). Obremenitve šolskega delovnega okolja in otrokova uspešnost. V M. Juricic (ur.), Šolska higiena: zbornik prispevkov (str. 27–34). Ljubljana: Sekcija za šolsko in visokošolsko medicino SZD. Vkljucevanje reference v tekst: ce gre za dobesedno navedbo, napišemo v oklepaju priimek avtorja, leto izdaje in stran (Lipovec, 2005, str. 9), ce pa gre za splošno navedbo, stran izpustimo (Lipovec, 2005). Prispevke lahko avtorji pošljejo po elektronski pošti na naslov rei.pef@um.si ali jih natisnjene in na zgošcenki pošljejo na naslov: UNIVERZA V MARIBORU PEDAGOŠKA FAKULTETA MARIBOR REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE Koroška cesta 160 2000 MARIBOR SLOVENIJA MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES The basic purpose of the journal JEE is to cover a broad spectrum of education theory and its implications for teaching practice, seeking to bridge and integrate diverse methodological and substantive research. The Editorial Board brings together academics and researchers from different European countries, who seek to promote a vigorous dialogue between scholars in various fields both central and related to scientific enquiry in education. Articles accepted for publication in JEE should address an important, up to date issue in education, apply appropriate research methodology, and be written in a clear and coherent style. Accepted articles should make significant contributions to the field. In addition, JEE accepts articles which promote advances in education from closely related fields, such as cognitive psychology, child development, applied linguistics and others. JEE does not publish articles that have appeared elsewhere or have been concurrently submitted to or are already under consideration for publication in other journals. The languages accepted for the papers eligible for publication in JEE are Slovene and English. Paper Acceptance Procedure After a paper is submitted to JEE, the editor/publishing board first establishes if it is within the journal's domain of interests and meets the journal's requirements for style and quality. 1. If the paper meets the standard and the concept of the journal, it is sent to reviewers. JEE uses a double-blind review. Papers which are within the journal's domain but do not meet its requirements for style or quality, may be returned to the author for revision. 2. Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection of the article about three months after submission of the manuscript. 3. The reviewed papers are returned to the authors with reviewers’ feedback and suggestions for improvement or an indication of the reasons for a rejection. 4. The decision regarding publication is made by the editor after considering the reviewers’ recommendations. The editorial board is under no obligation to provide justification for its decision. 5. The text of the paper should be edited in accordance with the Submission Guidelines. 6. Authors must certify that the data cited in the article are, to the best of their knowledge, accurate, reliable and authentic. When the article is accepted for publication, the author has to sign the Publishing Ethics Statement and the Statement of Authenticity. Manuscripts will also be submitted to plagiarism detection software. Preparation of Copy Follow these instructions for the preparation of the manuscript: 1. Submit your manuscript as a Word file. Use Times New Roman: 12 pt. for main text and 10 pt. for abstract in Slovene and English, and for references and quotations of three lines or more. All text must be 1.5 spaced and justified. Use boldface type for first level headings, italics for second level headings and regular type for all other headings. Do not number headings. Do not number headings or use uppercase. 2. The length of your paper should not exceed 8,000 words including the abstracts, bibliography, and key words. 3. The title of your article should not exceed 15 words. The title should be written in English and in Slovene. 4. At the beginning of the manuscript include an abstract (up to 100 words) in the language of the article, and its translation into the other language, followed by 5 key words. In addition to the abstracts also include a longer summary (about 500-700 words) at the end manuscript, before reference - in English if the article is in Slovene and in Slovene if the article is in English. 5. Do not use either footnotes or endnotes. 6. Quote references in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Include only the sources cited in current text, arranged in alphabetical order. 7. Send a separate document with the following information: author’s name and family name, address, full title of the article, academic title, affiliation and e-mail address. Example: Books: last name and name of the author, year of publication, title, location, press. Duh, M. (2004). Vrednotenje kot didakticni problem pri likovni vzgoji. Maribor: Pedagoška fakulteta. Articles from Magazines: last name and name of the author, year published, title of the article, name of the magazine, year, issue number, page(s). Planinšec, J. (2002). Športna vzgoja in medpredmetne povezave v osnovni šoli. Šport, 50 (1), 11–15. Academic Journals: last name and name of the author, year published, title of the article, information about the journal, page(s). Fošnaric, S. (2002). Obremenitve šolskega delovnega okolja in otrokova uspešnost. V M. Juricic (ur.), Šolska higiena: zbornik prispevkov (str. 27–34). Ljubljana: Sekcija za šolsko in visokošolsko medicino SZD. Citing sources in the body of the text: If a direct quotation is cited, write the last name of the author, year it was published and page number. Put this information in parenthesis (Lipovec, 2005, pg. 9). If the information is paraphrased, leave out the page number (Lipovec, 2005). Manuscripts may be sent electronically to rei.pef@um.si or in printed form, sent with a saved version on a disk to the following address: UNIVERZA V MARIBORU PEDAGOŠKA FAKULTETA MARIBOR REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE Koroška cesta 160 2000 MARIBOR SLOVENIJA