Opinions of teachers and primary education students on the use of literary language from the first to fifth grade of primary school

V Sloveniji je v več uradnih državnih dokumentih določeno, da mora poučevanje v šoli potekati v slovenskem jeziku (URS, 1991ZOsn, 2013ZJRS, 2004). Učitelji se morajo tako v šoli z učenci pogovarjati v slovenščini, in sicer je pri tem najustreznejša izbira zborni knjižni jezik ali knjižnopogovorni jezik (Poznanovič Jezeršek idr., 2018Kunst Gnamuš, 1992Petek, 2014Gomboc, 2009). Avtorica Jožef (2019) je izvedla raziskavo, v okviru katere je ugotovila, da se večina učiteljev drži teh priporočil – pri pouku se v večini trudijo izražati v knjižnem jeziku. Ugotovila je tudi, da večina učiteljev popravlja učence, kadar ti uporabljajo pogovorni jezik ali narečje. Petek (2019a) poudarja, da morajo biti učitelji ustrezno strokovno usposobljeni za javno govorno nastopanje. Spretnosti javnega govornega nastopanja se je treba naučiti, poleg tega pa se je treba na govorni nastop vnaprej pripraviti. Petek prav tako v svojih delih (Petek, 2019aPetek, 2019b) opredeli postopke razvijanja zmožnosti govornega nastopanja ter možnost učinkovite priprave na govorni nastop, in sicer: govorec naj izbere ustrezno socialno in funkcijsko zvrst jezika ter pomensko ustrezne besede. Pozoren naj bo tudi na slovnično pravilnost in pravorečni govor. Pri govornem nastopu naj uporablja dobro znane in pogosto rabljene besede. Ob tem naj opozorimo na besede avtorjev Šebjanič Oražem (2020) in Majdič (2003), da imajo učitelji začetniki slabše razvito zmožnost govorjenja in poslušanja oz. se pri njih pogosteje pojavljajo pravorečne napake. Najpogostejša med njimi je neobvladanje zborne pravorečne norme. V magistrskem delu smo raziskovali mnenje učiteljev in študentov razrednega pouka (v nadaljevanju učiteljev RP in študentov RP) o uporabi knjižnega in neknjižnega jezika pri pouku in zunaj njega na razredni stopnji. Vzorec je vključeval 86 učiteljev, ki so v šolskem letu 2020/21 poučevali na razredni stopnji na eni od slovenskih osnovnih šol, in 101 študenta razrednega pouka, ki so bili v študijskem letu 2020/21 vpisani na eno od slovenskih pedagoških fakultet. Cilji naše raziskave so bili pridobiti splošno mnenje učiteljev in študentov razrednega pouka o uporabi knjižnega oz. neknjižnega jezika pri pouku na razredni stopnji, in sicer pri spoznavnem in odnosnem govoru, pri posameznem učnem predmetu (slovenščina, matematika, spoznavanje okolja, družba, naravoslovje in tehnika, šport, likovna umetnost, glasbena umetnost ter gospodinjstvo) in zunaj rednega pouka v šoli. Pri ugotavljanju mnenja učiteljev RP in študentov RP o uporabi knjižnega oz. neknjižnega jezika pri pouku smo si za raziskovanje izbrali vse učne predmete, ki jih učitelj razrednega pouka poučuje v 1., 2., 3., 4. ali 5. razredu, tj. na razredni stopnji šolanja. Zanimalo nas je namreč, ali med posameznimi učnimi predmeti prihaja do odstopanj v mnenju o uporabi določene socialne zvrsti jezika. Ugotoviti smo želeli tudi, ali se njihova mnenja razlikujejo glede na območje, iz katerega so, glede na delovno dobo učiteljev in glede na razred, v katerem poučujejo, ter glede na letnik študija študentov. Na osnovi odgovorov, pridobljenih z anketnim vprašalnikom, in analize, narejene s statističnim programom SPSS, smo ugotovili, da se učitelji in študenti razrednega pouka v največji meri strinjajo z uporabo knjižnopogovornega jezika pri govoru z učenci pri pouku in zunaj njega. Najmanj pa se jih strinja z uporabo interesnih in mestnih govoric. Enako ugotovitve veljajo za uporabo zvrsti jezika pri spoznavnem in pri odnosnem govoru, zunaj pouka in pri posameznih učnih predmetih. Pri spoznavnem govoru in pri pouku slovenščine se več kot polovica učiteljev RP in študentov RP strinja tudi z uporabo zbornega knjižnega jezika. Zunaj pouka se večina študentov RP prav tako strinja z uporabo zemljepisnih narečij, medtem ko je delež učiteljev RP, ki se s tem strinjajo, precej nižji. V splošnem se anketirani učitelji RP in študenti RP ne strinjajo z uporabo neknjižnega jezika pri pouku. Bistvenih razlik v mnenju o uporabi posamezne jezikovne zvrsti slovenskega jezika v šoli med učitelji RP glede na razred, v katerem učijo, nismo zaznali. Večina učiteljev v vseh razredih se strinja z uporabo knjižnopogovornega jezika pri pouku. Učitelji, ki učijo v 2. in 3. razredu, se v večinskem deležu prav tako strinjajo z uporabo zbornega knjižnega jezika. Prav tako nismo zaznali bistvenih razlik med učitelji RP glede na njihovo delovno dobo in med študenti RP glede na njihov letnik študija. Skoraj vsi učitelji RP in študenti RP se strinjajo z uporabo knjižnopogovornega jezika pri pouku. Zaradi nereprezentativnega vzorca v posameznih slovenskih regijah nismo dobili splošnega odgovora pri ugotavljanju razlik med mnenjem učiteljev RP in študentov RP glede na njihovo statistično regijo. Posledično nismo dobili odgovora na 5. raziskovalno vprašanje. Ugotovili pa smo, da se v večini slovenskih regij večina učiteljev RP in študentov RP najbolj strinja z uporabo knjižnopogovornega jezika pri pouku pri govoru z učenci, nekaj manj se jih strinja z uporabo zbornega knjižnega jezika, večina pa se jih ne strinja z uporabo neknjižnega jezika. Mnenje učiteljev RP in študentov RP pri vseh odgovorih na zastavljena raziskovalna vprašanja v splošnem sovpada z izsledki iz literature, ki jo navajamo v teoretičnem delu. Glede na učni načrt za slovenščino (Poznanovič Jezeršek idr., 2018) ter glede na navajanja nekaterih avtorjev (Kunst Gnamuš, 1992Petek, 2014Gomboc, 2009) naj bi se učitelji v šoli z učenci in drugimi namreč sporazumevali v knjižnem jeziku (zbornem ali knjižnopogovornem). V večini se ne glede na vprašanje tudi učitelji RP in študenti RP strinjajo z uporabo knjižnopogovornega jezika (redkeje tudi zbornega knjižnega jezika) pri govoru z učenci pri pouku in zunaj njega. Odgovori učiteljev in študentov razrednega pouka so nam omogočili oblikovanje smernic za uporabo posamezne jezikovne zvrsti slovenskega jezika pri pouku in zunaj njega. Glavni poudarki smernic so poučevanje v zbornem knjižnem ali knjižnopogovornem jeziku z uporabo nekaterih elementov zemljepisnega narečja učencev, kadar je to potrebno. To naj velja v vseh razredih pri vseh učnih predmetih ne glede na statistično regijo, v kateri je šola. Teh smernic naj se učitelji držijo tudi pri govoru z učenci zunaj pouka. Raba interesnih in mestnih govoric pa je v šolskem prostoru neustrezna (tako pri pouku kot zunaj njega).In Slovenia, several official state documents stipulate that teaching must be conducted in Slovene (Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia [URS]Primary School Act [ZOsn], 2013Public Use of Slovene Act [ZJRS], 2010). Therefore, in schools, teachers must speak Slovene, and the most appropriate choice for this is literary language (Poznanovič Jezeršek, etc., 2018Kunst Gnamuš, 1992Petek, 2014Gomboc, 2009). Research by Jožef (2019) concluded that most teachers follow these recommendations and mostly try to express themselves in literary language. She also found that most teachers correct students when they use colloquial language or dialect. Petek (2019a) stresses that teachers should be properly trained in public speaking. Public speaking skills need to be learnedfurthermore, it is necessary to prepare for speeches in advance. In his works (Petek, 2019aPetek, 2019b), Petek also defines the procedures for developing the ability to speak in public and the possibility to effectively prepare for a speech performance, namely: the speaker should choose an appropriate social and functional language genre and the semantically appropriate words. The speaker should also pay attention to grammatical correctness and orthoepy. When giving speeches, the speaker should use familiar and frequently used words. In this context, we would like to draw attention to the opinions of authors Šebjanič Oražem (2020) and Majdič (2003), who state that beginner teachers have less developed speaking and listening skills and are more likely to make spelling mistakes. One of the most common mistakes is a lack of mastery of the corpus orthoepy norm. In this master’s thesis, we researched the opinions of teachers and students of primary school education (from 1st to 5th grade) regarding the teacher’s use of literary and non-literary language with pupils in the classroom and outside of it. The sample included 86 primary school teachers and 101 primary education students in the academic year of 2020/21. The research aims were to obtain the general opinion of teachers and students on the use of literary and non-literary language in classroom education, in cognitive and relational speech, in each subject (we chose all the subjects taught by the primary school teacher in grades 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), and outside of the regular school curriculum. We were mainly interested in whether there are any discrepancies in their opinion on the use of a particular social language genre. We also wanted to determine whether opinions differed according to the teacher’s area of origin, the years of service, the grade they taught, and the year of study of the students. Based on the answers obtained from the questionnaire and the analysis carried out with SPSS, we found primary school teachers and students of primary school education mostly agreed with using literary colloquial language when speaking to pupils, both inside and outside of the classroom. At the very least, the respondents agreed with the use of non-literary language (excluding geographical dialects). The same findings applied to language genres in cognitive and relational speech, outside the classroom, and for individual school subjects. More than half of the teachers and students also agreed with using the corpus language in cognitive speech and the school subject of Slovene. Outside the classroom, most students also agreed with the use of geographical dialects, though the proportion of teachers who agreed was much lower. Thus, in general, teachers and students did not agree with the use of non-literary language in the classroom. We did not notice any significant differences in the opinion on the use of each language genre in school among teachers, depending on the grade they teach. The majority of teachers in all classes agreed with using literary colloquial language in the classroom. The majority of teachers teaching in grades 2 and 3 also agreed with the use of the corpus language. We also found no significant differences between teachers according to their years of service and between students according to their year of study. Almost all teachers and students agreed with the use of literary colloquial language in the classroom. Due to the unrepresentative sample in each Slovenian region, we did not get a general answer as to the differences between the teachers’ and students’ opinions according to their statistical region. As a result, research question number 5 was not answered. However, we found that, in most Slovenian regions, teachers and students typically agreed with the use of literary colloquial language, and the majority disagreed with the use of non-literary language. The teachers’ and students’ opinions on all the answers to the research questions are broadly in line with our findings from the literature cited in the theoretical part of this master’s thesis. According to the curriculum of the school subject of Slovene (Poznanovič Jezeršek etc., 2018) and to some other authors (Kunst Gnamuš, 1992Petek, 2014Gomboc, 2009), teachers should communicate with pupils in literary language. Regardless of the question, the majority of teachers and students also agree to the use of literary colloquial language (rarely also corpus language) when speaking to pupils inside the classroom and outside of it. The teachers’ and students’ answers enabled us to formulate guidelines for the use of each language genre of the Slovene language, in and outside the classroom. The main focus of the guidelines is to teach in the corpus language or literary colloquial language, using some elements of the pupils’ geographical dialect when necessary. This should apply to all grades across all subjects, regardless of the statistical region in which the school is located. Teachers should also follow these guidelines when speaking to pupils outside the classroom. However, the use of languages of interest and urban languages is inappropriate in the school environment (both inside and outside the classroom)