Bojana Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Milica Popović Stijačić, MA, Nina Brkić Jovanović, PhD Educational Workshops: Positive Impact on Teaching and Learning Pr ejeto 29.09.2019 / Spr ejeto 10.02.2020 Znanstveni članek UDK 37.091.33-027.22 KLJUČNE BESEDE: učne delavnice, zdravstvena vzgoja, inovativno izobraževanje, interaktivni pouk, evalvacija učnih delavnic POVZETEK – V raziskavi, ki jo predstavljamo, smo pr oučevali učinke uporabe učne delavnice v okviru predmeta zdravstvena nega na srednji zdravstveni šoli. Uporabili smo model raziskovanja paralelnih skupin, v okviru kate r ega smo primerjali učinke učne delavnice z učinki tradicionalnega načina poučeva- nja. Zanimali so nas predvsem taksonomske stopnje znanja, ki so jih učenci usvojili, stopnje miselnih ak- tivnosti, nivo pedagoške komunikacije in možnosti individualiziranega in diferenciranega dela. Ugoto- vili smo, da didaktič no or ganizirane učne delavnice omogočajo povečano miselno aktivnost učencev , kakovostnejšo učno interakcijo, boljšo didaktično iz- rabo učnega časa in večjo stopnjo sodelovanja učen- cev . Rezultati kažejo, da so r ezultati v skladu z našimi pr edhodnimi teor etičnimi raziskavami in pr edstavlja- jo dobro osnovo za nadaljnja tovrstna raziskovanja. Received 29.09.2019 / Accepted 10.02.2020 Scientific paper UDC 37.091.33-027.22 KEYWORDS: educational workshop, health car e ed- ucation, innovative education, interactive teaching, educational workshop evaluation ABSTRACT – The research discussed in this paper sought to explore the effects of the implementation of an educati onal workshop in the Health Car e course at a vocational medical school. We applied the par- allel group design where we compared the effects of the educational workshop with the effects of the traditional teaching mode in the Health Car e course. In this study we investigated the levels of knowledge acquisition, the students’ active thought process, pedagogical communication, and the process of in- dividualization and differentiation in the teaching of professional medical school subjects. By means of an empirical study, we sought to learn whether there ar e differ ences in the quality , efficiency and impact of the educational process. We observed an increase in the participants’ active thought process, interaction, pedagogical organization and collaboration. The re- sults of our study are partly in accordance with our preliminary assumptions and they can be the basis for further r esear ch in the field of teaching. 1 Introduction Health Care is a basic course in the professional education of nurses at a vocational medical school. It is an obligatory course extending through four years of secondary nursing education. In the first two years of professional nursing education, the course setting involves school cubicles, which are equipped with all the necessary apparatuses needed for practical training. In the third and fourth year of nursing education, the Health Care course is essentially organized at primary, secondary and tertiary health- care institutions. During these courses, students are primarily introduced to the theoreti- cal background, and later, they are guided by a healthcare teacher through the practical implementation (Ranković Vasiljević, 2003). However, in past decades, the traditional form of teaching Health Care courses was criticized and some other interactive models 43 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . of teaching were advocated. Critical thinking has advanced, in contrast to the tradi- tional memorizing of course material. Additionally, in the modern practice of healthcare professionals, it is expected that nurses are acquainted with professional literature and the up-to-date findings within the health care profession (Zhang et al., 2012). In line with this, workshops can be introduced into formal education as a method of interac- tive teaching, which has long-term effects on learning: students are more attracted to learning, retain more information and, consequently, are more satisfied (Kutbiddinova, Eromasova & Romanova, 2016; Steinert & Snell, 1999). Some previous studies indicated the importance of workshops as a teaching mode in healthcare education (Allcock, 1992; Grugnetti et al., 2014; Hutnik & Gregory, 2008; Steinert & Snell, 1999; Treisman, 1992; Zhang et al., 2012). Educational workshops are methodical solutions that belong to interactive and student-centred learning aimed at developing skills and/or strengthening sensitivity to specific problems. The work- shop is designed according to the model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which focuses on the process and acquisition of skills, rather than the immediate outcome and acquired knowledge. During the workshop, cooperative and experiential learning are encouraged. Teachers as educational leaders create a warm sociable climate, and provide better and varied feedback on achievement. They prepare additional learning materials and provide students with more opportunity to respond and to be involved in the learning process (Knapp & Hall, 2006; Steinert & Snell, 1999). The greatest chal- lenge of a programme which provides cooperative learning is being thought-provoking and emotionally supporting pedagogical communication. According to Assilkhanova, Tazhbayeva and Ilimkhanova (2014), pedagogical communication is the key instrument in a teaching process, and Tubbs and Moss (2006) stated that effective communication is characterized by understanding, satisfaction, influence on attitudes and relationships, and triggering action (Tubbs & Moss, 2006; Toseland & Rivas, 2005). Sork (1984) defines a workshop as a short-term, intensive, problem-focused learn- ing from experience that actively involves the participants in the identification and analysis of the problem, but also in the development and evaluation of the solution. Furthermore, Fleming’s (1997) definition of a workshop emphasizes the development of competencies, interactive learning, practical work opportunities, intensive interac- tion, work in small groups and the application of new knowledge and skills. According to these previous studies, it could be concluded that workshops are most beneficial in acquiring particular skills. For example, Zhang et al. (2012) point out that some skills, such as searching for literature, are not greatly encouraged at the secondary level of nursing education. In their study, nursing students were given a scientific paper to review. Later, during the workshop section, students were encouraged to provide comments on the article. The authors believed that students utilized critical thinking during this interactive process. Furthermore, the students’ level of satisfaction with the workshop was very high, and consequently the authors concluded that the workshop, as a teaching technique, should be promoted in healthcare education. Grugnetti et al. (2014) applied Clinical Skills Workshops in order to train and to improve drug dosage calculation skills. In this study, nurses attended 30 hours of workshops over a two-week period. During that period, participants learned new innovative calculation techniques. Pre-test and post-test differences showed significant improvement in mathematical skills. Allcock (1992) implemented experiential workshops for developing assessment 44 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) skills, which is a very important part of the nursing process. Hutnik & Gregory (2008) utilized workshops in the interest of the development of cultural sensitivity of health- care professionals. Born, Revelle and Pinto (2002) implemented the full experimental design in their research. They conducted a two-year experimental study, in order to explore the effects of peer-led workshop groups on the performance of undergraduate Biology students. In particular, they sought out the effects of workshops in student minority groups. They assumed that the workshop environment would encourage minority students towards interpersonal interaction, which would consequently lead to an improvement in Biology study performance. The results of their study confirmed this presumption. In this study, we wanted to compare the quality, efficiency and effects of two teach- ing models at a vocational school: the model of an educational workshop and the tradi- tional teaching model. The quality of our study is reflected in the fact that we utilized a control group in our design, and that we introduced follow-up measures after six months. In line with previous studies (Adcock, 1992; Grugnetti et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2012), it was assumed that significant differences would be recorded in the quality, efficiency and effects of the educational process between the experimental and the control group. Specifically, we hypothesized that the experimental group would achieve a higher score in solving the knowledge and skills test immediately after the implementation of the programme, and after the six months’ follow-up. Furthermore, we expected that the quality of the teaching time and the students’ active participation would benefit most from the implementation of the workshop programme. 2 Method 2.1 Participants The participants were students who attended the second year of the vocational med- ical school “7. April”. All of them were enrolled in the Health Care – Theory course. The final sample consisted of 111 students: 56 of them were assigned to the experimen- tal group and 55 were assigned to the control group. 2.2 Study Design We applied the 2 × 3 mixed factorial design. The between-subject factor was the teaching model with two levels – the traditional teaching mode applied in the control group and the workshop mode applied in the experimental group. The within-subject factor was the time of testing. Namely, two groups were tested at three time points: before the intervention (baseline measurement), immediately after the intervention, and six months after the end of the programme. We recorded eight dependent variables: the level and quality of knowledge operationalized as a score (percentage) on the knowl- edge test; three components of the protocol for monitoring teaching – students’ thinking activity defined as a score on the activity protocol checklist; pedagogical communica- 45 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . tion expressed as a score on the scale which evaluates didactic organization and class interaction; and individualization and differentiation of the educational process defined as a score on the scale which evaluates the individualization of teaching. Furthermore, the four components of the protocol for teaching time were also collected: communi- cation and cooperation, rationality and organization, encouragement of students, and application of knowledge (all of them represented as a score on the subscale). The control variables were the overall school achievement expressed as an average mark from all the courses attended by the students, the mark in a particular subject defined as a number from one to five, where five denotes the highest mark, the attitude towards the course, and their opinion of the teacher. 2.3 Instruments The initial test was designed to collect basic data about the participants (gender, year of schooling, class, general achievement, mark from a specific course) and to re- cord the initial levels of knowledge relating to the educational units of diagnostics, which is part of the Health Care course. This test contained 16 questions and was rated on a six-point scale. Parallel forms of tests were created to measure the level of student competence immediately after the intervention and six months after the intervention. Additionally, students evaluated teachers and the degree of satisfaction with the Health Care course in general. Independent observers – pedagogical specialists – evaluated teaching time in the Health Care course in both the experimental and the control group. They observed the time according to an original protocol for monitoring teaching. This protocol evaluates four aspects of teaching time: communication and cooperation, rationality and organi- zation, encouragement of students, and application of knowledge. The protocol contains 26 items; Table 1 presents an analysis of the reliability of the used scales expressed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Table 1. Protocol for monitoring teaching time – Reliability of the used scales expressed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient Teaching time α Communication and cooperation (8) 0.81 Rationality and organization (7) 0.85 Encouragement of students (7) 0.78 Application of knowledge (4) 0.68 Legend: The number in brackets represents the number of items in each subscale. The teachers also evaluated the course with the protocol for teaching. The proto- col for teaching consists of 40 items, which we followed in order to measure students’ thinking activities, pedagogical communication, and individualization and differentia- 46 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) tion of the teaching process. Table 2 presents data on the reliability of questionnaires for measuring mental activity, pedagogical communication, individualization and dif- ferentiation expressed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. We have concluded that the reliability of the obtained data is satisfactory. Table 2. Reliability of questionnaires for measuring mental activity, pedagogical com- munication, and individualization and differentiation expressed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient Mental activity α Thinking activity (32) 0.93 Pedagogical communication (38) 0.85 Individualization and differentiation (8) 0.67 Legend: The number in brackets represents the number of items in each subscale. 2.4 Statistical Analysis The data collected were processed in the statistical software SPSS 11.5 for Win- dows. The data were analysed with the t-test, chi-squared test, and analysis of covari- ance for repeated measures. 2.5 Pr ocedur e The survey was conducted during the 2013–2014 school year. Six teachers par- ticipated in the study; half of them utilized the traditional form of teaching, and half of them implemented the educational workshop in their course. The control group was educated in the traditional manner, where two lessons lasted 45 minutes each. In the experimental group, students were taught according to a special programme, which lasted 90 minutes. In the workshop mode, the following teaching methods were applied: monologue, dialogue, modified lecture, plenary work, group work, and individual work. An over- head projector, a computer, whiteboard, multimedia presentation, and various workshop material were used as tools. The aim of the methodical unit was an Introduction to Nursing Interventions in Laboratory Diagnostics (Curriculum of V ocational Subjects of Secondary V ocational Education in the Field of Health and Social Welfare, 2015). It was expected that the students would acquire basic knowledge about the procedures in which the nurse and technician participate in laboratory diagnostics. Additionally, another expected outcome was the development of humanity and altruism as necessary values for healthcare professionals. In Table 3, an example of the methodical lesson structure in the workshop mode is presented, without the learning content. 47 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . Table 3. Example of the methodical lesson structure in the workshop mode in the expe- rimental programme for the implementation of educational workshops in nur- sing teaching unit models Methodical lesson structure Time Activity Activity – short description 20’ Introduction Writing students’ expectations, fears and previous experience on Post-Its; The teacher reads the students’ answers and together they discuss their expectations, fears and previous experience; Defining a “Contract” Creation of expected behaviour in a group and characteristics of group dynamics; 40’ Highlighting the goal of a lesson The teacher introduces the students to the title of the methodical unit; Students’ individual work Writing students’ first associations about the importance of the unit on Post-Its; Short discussion in plenum The teacher summarizes the students’ answers by developing a short discussion and concludes with the importance of the unit; Modified lecture After the students’ responses and the discussion, the teacher presents a part of the new lesson material; Cooperative learning in small groups Cooperative learning of new group material; 30’ Working in plenum Students present the results of group work. Each group has the right to create a presentation method; Discussion in plenum The teacher summarizes the presented results of students’ small group work and develops a generalization of the new knowledge; Student evaluation time – asking a question in plenum Students anonymously write one question about the unit; The teacher reads them and together they search for answers; “Check-out” – giving feedback “Outgoing message” – students write a message about how they felt and what they think about the lesson on paper and place it on the door. 3 Results 3.1 Testing the Effects on Knowledge Adoption and Retention At the beginning of our study, we tested the participants from the experimental and control groups on four aspects: initial knowledge test, overall school achievement, and participants’ opinion on the Health Care course curriculum and their opinion of the teacher. Table 4 presents the average score, the t-test and its significance. It can be noticed that the experimental and control groups were matched for initial test achieve- ment, the overall school achievement, and the score from the participant. 48 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) Since a statistically significant difference in the students’ opinion on the course between groups was recorded (Table 4), this variable was statistically controlled in sub- sequent analyses (Table 6). T able 4. Descriptive statistics of the control variables and the difference testing Group N M t df P Initial knowledge test Control 56 54.57 0.344 109 0.73 Experimental 55 53.43 Overall achievement Control 56 4.21 –0.99 109 0.32 Experimental 55 4.33 Opinion of the course Control 56 8.93 2.44 109 0.016 Experimental 55 8.45 Opinion of the teacher Control 56 8.48 0.34 109 0.73 Experimental 55 8.40 N M χ 2 df P Score from the participant Control 56 4.68 4.28 3 0.23 Experimental 55 4.62 Legend: N – number of participants; M – mean; t – t-test; df – degrees of freedom; p – p value. T able 5. Mean scores for knowledge tests at three measuring time points Group N M ± SD Initial knowledge test Control 56 54.57 ± 19.2 Experimental 55 53.43 ± 15.5 Test 2 (immediately after intervention) Control 56 55.95 ± 16.4 Experimental 55 50.42 ± 15.5 Test 3 (six months’ follow-up) Control 56 70.53 ± 15.7 Experimental 55 72.61 ± 16.3 Legend: N – number of participants; M – mean; SD – standard deviation. T able 6. Multivariate effects of the group and opinion on achievement at the initial kno- wledge test, the test immediately after the completed programme, and the test six months after the conducted programme W ilks’ λ F-test P-value Measurement 0.95 2.78 0.06 Measurement x groups 0.96 2.01 0.29 Measurement x opinion on the subject 0.97 1.23 0.13 49 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . We tested the benefits of the applied workshop with the mixed ANOV A. We tested the differences between three measurements. In Table 5, the average scores on knowl- edge tests are presented. Contrary to our prediction, the control group achieved a higher score compared to students from the experimental group (a score higher by 5.53 points). Although the experimental group achieved better results in the follow-up, there was no significant difference between measures (Table 6). In Table 6, multivariate effects of the group and measurement, as well as their interaction are presented. None of the effects were significant. According to these results, we cannot confirm the benefits of educa - tional workshops on knowledge adoption and retention. 3.2 Effects on the Teaching Process In the second part of our study, we explored the effects of an educational work- shop on the teaching process. Two independent pedagogical specialists recorded their answers in the protocol for monitoring the teaching process. Table 7 shows the average scores on the four components of the teaching process: communication and collabora- tion, rationality and organization, encouragement of students, correlation and applica- tion of knowledge. The independent t-test was applied; the values of tests and p-values are presented in Table 7. It can be noticed that significant differences between the ex- perimental and control group were recorded for all measured components. For every component, the experimental group performed better compared to the control group. T able 7. Protocol for monitoring teaching time – Differences between experimental and control group Component Group N M ± SD t df P Communication and collaboration Experimental 14 28.2 ± 3.5 3.38 21 0.003 Control 9 23.6 ± 2.8 Rationality and organization Experimental 14 24.9 ± 3.2 4.28 21 0.000 Control 9 19.3 ± 2.8 Encouragement of students Experimental 14 21.8 ± 3.9 3.77 21 0.001 Control 9 16.0 ± 3.0 Correlation and application of knowledge Experimental 14 11.5 ± 2.7 3.62 21 0.002 Control 9 8.0 ± 1.2 Legend: N – number of participants; M – mean; t – t-test; df – degrees of freedom; p – p-value. In the second protocol for monitoring teaching, we measured students’ thinking activity, pedagogical communication, and individualization and differentiation of their activity. The results of the difference tests, as well as the average scores recorded in each group, are presented in Table 8. For all three components, the experimental group 50 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) showed an advantage compared to the control group. An independent t-test showed that these differences are statistically significant (Table 8). T able 8. Protocol for monitoring teaching – Differences between experimental and con- trol group Variable Group N M ± SD t df p Thinking activity Experimental 14 57.4 ± 10.0 3.49 21 0.002 Control 9 43.4 ± 8.2 Pedagogical communication Experimental 14 65.0 ± 9.0 3.29 21 0.003 Control 9 51.4 ± 0.7 Individualization and differentiation Experimental 14 25.5 ± 5.3 4.58 21 0.000 Control 9 15.7 ± 4.4 Legend: N – number of participants; M – mean; t – t-test; df – degrees of freedom; p – p-value. 4 Discussion In this study, we wanted to explore the effects of implementing an educational workshop in the Health Care course at a vocational medical school. We applied a cor- responding group design study where we compared the effects of the educational work- shop with the effects of the traditional teaching mode in the Health Care course. Previous research on workshop implementation, as a teaching method in health care education, showed that the application of this teaching method is beneficial from several aspects (Allcock, 1992; Grugnetti et al., 2014; Hutnik & Gregory, 2008; Treis- man, 1992; Zhang et al., 2012). In the present study, we investigated the implementation of a workshop as a teaching method for knowledge acquisition, and for teaching and student activity. According to some of the previous studies in which the effects of workshops in the acquisition of specific skills were recorded (Grugnetti et al., 2014), we assumed that stu- dents from the experimental group would show a greater level of knowledge acquisition immediately after the intervention and in the follow-up testing. However, our results have not shown such an improvement. In conclusion, from the aspect of knowledge acquisition the workshop was as good as the traditional form of teaching. Furthermore, similar results were recorded six months after the intervention. The reason why there were no dissimilarities could lie in the fact that students talk about the new method of teaching, and that the control group were extra motivated to show good results on their final test. The second part of this study examined the teaching process as well as students’ activity during the workshop and during the traditional lessons. Two independent peda- gogical specialists observed the lessons and recorded their answers as part of the pro- 51 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . tocol for monitoring teaching and student activity. One protocol measured four aspects of teaching activity: communication and collaboration, rationality and organization, en- couragement of students’ activity, and application of knowledge. Significant differences were noted in all of these aspects. It was noted that in the experimental group the major- ity of the students were creative and acquainted with their independent work (talking, writing, illustrating, exploring, discovering, solving, concluding, etc.). Teachers who led the workshops stimulated thinking activity. They did not raise rhetorical questions nor present the facts or an opinion on the content or the procedure. Furthermore, the evaluation of the didactic organization and social interaction showed that, at the time of experimental teaching, a tense emotional atmosphere had not been achieved, that vari- ous forms and didactic ideas were used over time, and that the teacher did not structure or limit the situation. Differences between the experimental and the control group were recorded in the analyses of the second protocol, which was created for monitoring students’ activity: thinking activity, pedagogical communication, and individualization and differentia- tion. In all of these aspects, students who attended the workshop lessons were better than the students who took part in the traditional forms of teaching. The teacher in the experimental group encouraged students to ask and discuss, gave examples that were interesting and related to the students’ experience, stimulated a search for a solu- tion through group interaction, devoted attention to students who were less motivated, determined the work in accordance with the students’ abilities, and adjusted the pro- grammes according to the students’ interests. The teacher encouraged students to ex- press their opinions and observations, encouraged the use of knowledge and skills in other fields, used all available teaching materials, and applied different forms, methods and techniques. Also, the teacher told students to do research work, used the space and environment in accordance with the content, encouraged solidarity and responsibility in group work, and encouraged students to apply the learned content in nursing practice. Although the workshops were not beneficial to the cognitive aspect of the teaching process, they influenced pedagogical communication as a crucial part of the teaching process (Assilkhanova et al., 2014) and an essential link for learning. The results of our study are partly in accordance with our preliminary assumptions. Even though we did not confirm the workshop’s effects on knowledge acquisition when compared to the traditional mode of teaching, we clarified the significant contribution of the workshop implementation from several aspects. Firstly, we confirmed improved pedagogical communication through the social interaction during the lesson. Further- more, the workshop lessons provided better individual support to each student with a more individualized educational process in the field of formal higher education. Finally, in relation to the learning process, we observed greater students’ activity, motivated interaction in the classroom, and a higher quality of pedagogical organization and col- laboration. To sum up, the present study has demonstrated the need to build a pedagogy of learning – a pedagogy that will enable learners to learn. Our study showed that the im- plementation of an educational workshop as a method of interactive learning in formal secondary education develops pedagogical communication, which is essential for the learning process. The evaluation of educational workshops should be encouraged, not 52 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) only for this educational profile and subject – it could act as a platform for higher qual- ity formal methodical studies. Dr . Bojana Perić Prkosovački, mag. Milica Popović Stijačić, dr . Nina Brkić Jovanović Vpliv učnih delavnic na pouk in učenje V raziskavi, ki jo pr edstavljamo, smo pr oučevali učinke uporabe učne delavnice v okviru predmeta zdravstvena nega na srednji zdravstveni šoli. Uporabili smo model raziskovanja paralelnih skupin, v okviru kater ega smo primerjali učinke učne delavnice z učinki tradicionalnega načina poučevanja. Zanimale so nas pr edvsem taksonomske stopnje znanja, ki so jih učenci usvojili, stopnje miselnih aktivnosti, nivo pedagoške komunikacije in možnosti individualiziranega in difer enciranega dela. Ugotovili smo, da didaktično or ganizirane učne delavnice omogočajo povečano miselno aktivnost učencev , kakovostnejšo učno interakcijo, boljšo didaktično izrabo učnega časa in večjo stopnjo sodelovanja učencev . Rezultati kažejo, da so r ezultati v skladu z našimi pr ed- hodnimi teor etičnimi raziskavami in pr edstavljajo dobr o osnovo za nadaljnja tovrstna raziskovanja. Nekater e pr edhodne študije so nakazovale pomembnost učnih delavnic kot način učenja in poučevanja v zdravstvenem izobraževanju. Učne delavnice so bile opažene kot metodično-didaktične r ešitve, ki omogočajo interaktivno, pr ocesno in na učence osr edotočeno poučevanje. Pr oces učenja je v okviru interaktivnega učenja usmerjen na razvijanje spr etnosti in kr epitev občutljivosti na specifične pr obleme. Učne delavnice so oblikovane po modelu iskustvenega učenja, ki se osr edotoča na pr oces in pridobivanje spr etnosti v večji meri kot na pridobivanje znanja. V okviru teor etičnega dela raziskave smo opr edelili osnovne koncepte raziskova- nja s filozofskim ozadjem s poudarkom na praktičnih tendencah raziskovanja v učnem pr ocesu. T eor etični okvir vključuje teorije konstruktivističnih razsežnosti interaktivnega učnega pr ocesa, koncept razvojnega pristopa pri delu z učenci, teorije interaktivnega učenja in pouka, modeliranje oblik učnih delavnic in tudi metode spr emljanja in vr e- dnostenja kakovosti učnega pr ocesa. Za preverjanje hipotez smo uporabili deskriptivno metodo in izvedli raziskavo s pa- ralelnimi skupinami. Uporabili smo naslednje raziskovalne tehnike: analizo podatkov , intervju, anketiranje in načrtovano opazovanje učnih ur v eksperimentalni in kontr olni skupini. Podatke smo zbrali s testi znanja, vprašalniki, s pomočjo lestvic stališč za učen- ce in učitelje ter s pomočjo pr otokolov za spr emljanje in ocenjevanje pouka. Uporabili smo deskriptivno statistiko, t-test, HI-kvadrat test in analizo kovariance. Glede na nekater e pr edhodne raziskave, v katerih so bili zaznani učinki učnih de- lavnic pri pridobivanju specifičnih spr etnosti, smo sklepali, da bodo učenci iz eksperi- mentalne skupine dosegli višji taksonomski nivo usvojenega znanja takoj po izvedbi in v okviru ponovljenega testiranja. Vendar pa rezultati niso pokazali takega izboljšanja. Ugotovili smo, da so učenci v okviru učne delavnice pridobili oz. usvojili približno ena- ko znanje kot v okviru tradicionalnih didaktičnih pristopov . Podobni so bili tudi r ezulta- ti vr ednotenja po šestih mesecih. S pomočjo racionalnega pristopa smo poskušali dobiti 53 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . ustr ezen odgovor . Menimo, da se ustr ezne statistično pomembne razlike niso pojavile, ker so učenci o eksperimentu in novem didaktičnem pristopu razpravljali in da je bila kontr olna skupina dodatno motivirana za doseganje dobrih r ezultatov na zaključnem pr everjanju učne snovi. Drugi del te študije govori o učnem pr ocesu in dejavnostih učencev med učnim pr o- cesom, tor ej med izvajanjem učne delavnice in med tradicionalnimi didaktičnimi pri- stopi. Dva neodvisna pedagoška strokovnjaka sta opazovala pouk in zapisovala odzive učencev , kar je del pr otokola za spr emljanje pouka in aktivnosti učencev . Prvi pr otokol je meril štiri vidike učne dejavnosti: komunikacijo in sodelovanje, racionalnost in or- ganiziranost, spodbude za aktivnost učencev in oblike povezovanje znanja. Pri vseh teh vidikih so bile opažene pomembne razlike. Opaženo je bilo, da je bila v eksperimentalni skupini večina učencev ustvarjalna in seznanjena s svojim samostojnim delom. Učitelji, ki so vodili delavnice, so spodbujali miselno aktivnost. Poleg tega je ocena didaktične or ganizacije in socialne interakcije pokazala, da med eksperimentalnim učenjem ni bilo doseženo napeto čustveno vzdušje in da so bili uporabljeni različni didaktični postopki in učne oblike. Učitelj ni natančno strukturiral učnega pr ocesa in ni omejeval možnosti različnih učnih situacij pri učnih urah. Razlike med eksperimentalno in kontr olno skupino so bile zabeležene v analizah drugega pr otokola, ki je bil pripravljen za spr emljanje miselne aktivnosti učencev , pe- dagoške komunikacije, individualizacije in difer enciacije učnega pr ocesa. Na teh po- dr očjih so bili dijaki, ki so se udeležili učnih delavnic, boljši od učencev , ki so pridobi- vali znanje v okviru tradicionalnih oblik poučevanja in učenja. Učitelj eksperimentalne skupine je učence spodbujal, da postavljajo vprašanja in se vključujejo v razpravo, navajal je primer e, ki so bili zanimivi in so povezani z izkušnjami učencev , spodbujal je iskanje r ešitev s skupinsko interakcijo, pozor en je bil na učence, ki so bili manj moti- virani, svoje delo je prilagajal sposobnostim učencev in učno snov inter esom učencev . Učence je spodbujal, da izražajo svoja mnenja in ugotovitve, spodbujal je uporabo znanja in spr etnosti na drugih podr očjih, pri čemer je uporabil vsa razpoložljiva učna gradiva in različne didaktične strategije, oblike, metode in tehnike učenja. Prav tako je učitelj učence spodbujal k raziskovalnemu delu, uporabljal pr ostor in okolje skladno z vsebino, spodbujal solidarnost in odgovornost pri skupinskem delu ter učence spodbu- jal k uporabi naučenih vsebin v str okovni praksi. Rezultati statistične analize vpliva učnih delavnic na kakovost, stopnjo pridoblje- nega znanja, kognitivno aktivnost učencev , pedagoško sporazumevanje ter pr oces in- dividualizacije in difer enciacije v poučevanju so se pokazali kot odločilni na podlagi tr eh od petih opr edeljenih raziskovalnih spr emenljivk. T o nas pripelje do zaključka, da med temi spr emenljivkami obstaja vzr očna zveza. Raziskava je pokazala, da so učne delavnice kot metodološki model poučevanja str okovnih pr edmetov omogočile boljšo interaktivno izobraževalno komunikacijo. Če učitelj ustvari ustr ezno interaktivno di- daktično podpor o, postanejo učenci bolj aktivni in ustvarjalni dejavnik v učnem pr o- cesu. Poleg tega smo ugotovili, da so v okviru učnih delavnic v večji meri upoštevana načela individualizacije in difer enciacije učnega pr ocesa. V endar pa podatki kažejo, da med pridobljenim znanjem med eksperimentalno in kontrolno skupino ne obstajajo statistično pomembne razlike. Analiza r ezultatov raziskave je pokazala, da uporaba učnih delavnic kot metode interaktivnega učenja v formalnem sr ednješolskem izobraževanju večinoma razvija iz- 54 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) obraževalno komunikacijo. Komunikacija je bistvenega pomena za učni pr oces. Pou- čevanje vedno pr edpostavlja učenje in je funkcija učenja. Poučevanje obstaja zaradi učenja. Po drugi strani pa si učiteljeve dejavnosti ni mogoče pr edstavljati br ez ustr e- znih dejavnosti učencev . T o pomeni, da se od učencev pričakuje intenzivno intelektualno delo, iskanje in odkrivanje novih rešitev, skratka ustvarjalen pristop. Vsekakor bi se morale izobraževalne institucije oz. učitelji v večji meri osr edotočiti na pr ocese pridobi- vanja znanja in ne toliko na same r ezultate. Učence je tr eba v večji meri usposobiti, da iščejo in razvijejo lastne poti, algoritme do odgovor ov in r ešitev pr oblema, ne pa da se r ešitve samo naučijo. Vztrajanje pri zahtevi samostojnega iskanja odgovor ov in r ešitev prispeva k razvoju kognitivnih sposobnosti in ustvarjalnih potencialov, kar so temelji hevrističnega učnega pristopa. Nehevristični pristop od učenca zahteva izključno dober spomin. Iz vsega povedanega seveda ni mogoče sklepati, da sta pr oces in r ezultat ločeni in medsebojno neodvisni kategoriji, pač pa da se v celovitem učnem pr oces dopolnjuje- ta in sta v komplementarnem odnosu. Učne delavnice kot didaktičen fenomen so primerna oblika dela na vseh stopnjah šolskega sistema, od predšolskih ustanov do visokošolskih institucij. Zagotovo predsta- vljajo platformo za oblikovanje in razvijanje novih specialno-didaktičnih pristopov , ki bodo bolj osr edotočeni na učenca in sam učni pr oces. REFERENCES 1. Allcock, N. (1992). Teaching the skills of assessment through the use of an experiential wor- kshop. Nurse Education Today, 12, pp. 287–292. 2. Assilkhanova, M., Tazhbayeva, S., Ilimkhanova, L. (2014). Psychological Aspects of Pedagogi- cal Communication. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (20), pp. 2726–2728. 3. Born, W., Revelle, W., Pinto, L. (2002). Improving Biology Performance with Workshop Gro- ups. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), pp. 347–365. 4. Brooks-Harris, J., Stock-Ward, S.R. (1999). Workshop – Designing and Facilitating Experi- mental Learning. London: SAGE Publications. 5. Curriculum of vocational subjects of secondary vocational education in the field of health and social welfare (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia-Educational Gazette, 7/2014, 11/2014 and 9/2015). 6. Drane, D., Smith, H.D., Light, G., Pinto, L., Swarat, S. (2005). The gateway science workshop program: Enhancing student performance and retention in the sciences through peer-facilitated discussion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), pp. 337–352. 7. Grugnetti, A.M., Bagnasco, A., Rosa, F., Sasso L. (2014). Effectiveness of a Clinical Skills Wor - kshop for drug-dosage calculation in a nursing program. Nurse Education Today, 34, pp. 619–624. 8. Hutnik, N., Gregory, J. (2008). Cultural sensitivity training: Description and evaluation of a workshop. Nurse Education Today, 28, pp. 171–178. 9. Knapp, M.L., Hall, J.A. (2006). Nonverbal communication in Human Interaction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wardsworth. 10. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 11. Kutbiddinova, R.A., Eromasova, A.A., Romanova, M.A. (2016). The Use of Interactive Me- thods in the Educational Process of the Higher Education Institution. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (14), pp. 6557–6572. 12. Ranković Vasiljević, R. (2003). Metodika nastave zdravstvene nege. Beograd: Viša medicinska škola. (Methodology of teaching nursing. Belgrade: Higher Medical School). 13. Steinert, Y ., Snell, L.S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21(1), pp. 37–42. 55 Perić Prkosovački, PhD, Popović Stijačić, MA, Brkić Jovanović, PhD: E d u c a t i o n a l . . . 14. Toseland, R.W., Rivas, R.F. (2005). An introduction to group work practice, 5/e. Boston. Pe- arson. 15. Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathe- matics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal 23, pp. 362–372. 16. Tubbs, S.L., Moss, S. (2006). Human communication principles and contexts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 17. Vilotijević, M. (1995). Evaluacija didaktičke efikasnosti nastavnog časa. Beograd: CURO. (Evaluation of didactic efficiency of teaching time. Belgrade: CURO.) 18. Zhang, Q., Zeng, T., Chen, Y ., Li, X. (2012). Assisting undergraduate nursing students to learn evidence-based practice through self-directed learning and workshop strategies during clinical practicum. Nurse Education Today, 32, pp. 570–575. Bojana Perić Prkosovački, PhD (1979), T eaching Assistant of Pedagogical Subjects, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad. Addr ess: Resavska 1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; T elephone: (+381) 064 207 07 79 E mail: bojana.peric-prkosovacki@mf.uns.ac.rs Milica Popović Stijačić, MA (1983), Associate at Laboratory of Experimental Psychology , Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad. Addr ess: Dr . Zorana Đinđića 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; T elephone: (+381) 021 458 948 E mail: milica.p.stijacic@gmail.com Nina Brkić Jovanović, PhD (1982), Assistant Pr ofessor at Department of Psychology , Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad. Addr ess: Hajduk V eljkova 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; T elephone: (+381) 021 420 677 E mail: nina.brkic-jovanovic@mf.uns.ac.rs