ࡱ> [Ebjbj .ΐΐMRR8dE)B1GGGG"""lAnAnAnAnAnAnA$CFAQ"""""AGGA%%%"dGGlA%"lA%%'2(GC0ک'XAA0)B(,YG$<YG2(2(&YGX(""%"""""AAB%j""")B""""YG"""""""""R [:Analysis of Communication Models of Interaction in Higher Education Ana Globo nik }unac1, Ljubica Baki-Tomi2 1 Effectus College - school of Law and Finance, Zagreb, Croatia 2 Faculty of Teacher Education of the University of Zagreb, Croatia e-mail:  HYPERLINK "mailto:lj.bakic-tomic@ufzg.hr" lj.bakic-tomic@ufzg.hr Abstract Preliminary study of interaction in the university teaching process was conducted by using Flanders idea of monitoring (FIA). Flanders introduced ten elements that are explored in teaching communication processed. According to the specifics of the higher education system and the lifelong learning - teaching process which involves adults, not children, these ten elements were changed for the purpose of this study. Preliminary research included monitoring the educational process of three university teachers, each in two teaching situations. Teaching situations were pre-arranged with the lecturer and one lecture was held with an emphasis on greater interaction between students and teachers, and the other in full without any interaction. These results indicate range of different forms of interaction that is common in higher education classroom and the time that is used in some of these forms. The paper gives preliminary results and opens the door to further research in this area which is the basis for the implementation of quality study offer. Key words interaction, communication model, higher education, adult education, quality teaching, Flanders Interaction Analysis (FIA). Introduction Interpersonal communication is an inseparable element of the educational process and is realized through the interaction during the teaching process. At lower levels of education as primary and secondary education, there were conducted many studies of interaction in the learning process while tertiary education is often mentioned but rarely explored. According to Walberg (1986) there are seven key parameters that influence the success of teaching. These are: well use of academic time for teaching, inclusion of positive elements (positive psychology, the author's note) to enhance the effect of teaching, cooperative learning, positive classroom atmosphere, setting demanding issues, giving instructions and feedback and the use of advanced organization of teaching process. Researches conducted by Flanders (1970) during the 1960th and 1970th showed that two thirds of class time are dedicated to various forms of direct speech of a teacher and the teacher is verbally dominant in the classroom. It is this verbal domination that starts back effect in which the participants (pupils, students) are passive which adversely affects their attitude towards the teaching process and manifestes in poor achievement at the end of the teaching process. E.G. Starkie (2007) from UNED, the largest Spanish university, talks about the new roles of teachers and students in the desired single area of European higher education. In his paper Starkie lists the skills a "new" teacher needs: managing the processes that generate and use knowledge; the ability of the incorporation of new technologies in teaching; ability to maintain interest, motivation and enjoyment in learning; ability to learn and interact with others; capacity to satisfy the curiosity, creativity and analysis of students; attitude to implementation of interpersonal communication and group work; imagination to identify and exploit opportunities for learning; moral authority. Ghlich and Zirfas (2007) talk about the four dimensions of learning: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learn to be. According to that learning must take place always in relation to experience, in dialogue, meaningfully and holistic. The authors note that the goal of pedagogy is in the dynamic virtuosity of learning which is a theory and practice support of learning by itself. Relevant studies were performed at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Osijek, in which was required assessment of student about efficiency of integrative learning. Buljubaai-Kuzmanovic (2007) reported that during the lecture, students asked questions to themselves, others and the professor and sought of opportunities for generating new ideas and their practical application. During the seminar, students developed critical thinking, self-criticism, and adaptability to new situations and differences. The author concludes that cooperation and teamwork of students influenced taking initiative in learning and studying objects. These objects were looked at and practiced in a context of growing demands for open and flexible learning programs in integrative processes that go beyond intellectual learning. OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS According to the information about the importance of interaction in the classroom the question of what it is like in the area of higher education in Croatia was raised. Therefore in the academic year 2009/2010 a preliminary investigation was initiated. The research had the task to find out how much teaching time in the classroom is spent and in which forms of interaction. The research set the following hypotheses: H1: Lecturers have the ability to manage the interaction in higher education process. H2: The share of time in which the student is involved in communication during the course is at least one third of the total time. H3: Lecturers use at least five different types of interaction in the classroom. H4: In the case of induced interactive classes there are more different forms of communication used than it is in the case of lectures without interaction. H5: When inducing interactive teaching the time spent in the communication of students and indirect speech of the lecturers is significantly greater than under the teaching without any interaction. RESEARCH METHOD AND SAMPLE The survey was conducted during the summer semester, and since it was a preliminary study there were three lecturers followed, each in two communication situation that were arranged in advance. First situation was a lecture with induced intensive interaction and the other lecture without any interaction between the lecturer and his audience. Two lecturers at the time of research had teaching positions of a lecturer and a senior lecturer, but they did not have any kind of pedagogical and psychological education. The third teacher was certified to conduct classes and had a position of associate professor. Each of the lecturers gave two lectures at which new content is processed. The lectures lasted 45 minutes, but the time recorded was of the first 40 minutes. The researcher attended all sessions and recorded the changes in communication every 3 seconds. Changes were recorded in the grid prepared in advance. FIA instrument (Flanders instrument for measuring the interaction) was used as a starting point for analysis of interaction in the teaching process of tertiary education system. For the purpose of this research the parameters were partially altered because of the specifics of teaching students. The parameters measured are described in the attached Table 1. Table 1 Using humor - using humorous anecdotes, metaphors, emphasizing characteristics or inserting jokes during lectures and presentations. Initiative IndirectPraise and encouragement - encouraging the activities and behavior of students. Including nonverbal as encouraging nod.of a lecturerinfluenceListening - Showing interest for previous experience and knowledge of students and their attitude toward a subject that is being processed.Acceptance or use of student ideas - clarifying, developing and upgrading of the students ideas. If there is a significant addition of facts and opinions of teachers goes up to 6th category.Asking questions / problem-solving tasks - related to the content of teaching topics in order to exercise and/or develop understanding. DirectLecturing - transfer of facts, opinions about the content and procedures, expressing the own opinions of the lecturer, posting rhetorical questions.influenceGiving directions or instructions - that students are expected to consider and do.Criticism/authoritative domination - asserting teachers in order to change behavior or attitude of students from unacceptable to acceptable pattern. Highlighting the own importance and dominance, explaining their own actions.Initiative of a studentReply - student gives an opinion on the conversation topic, provides an answer to the question or task set by the teacher.Student initiative - speech by students that they initiated themselves. Asserting opinions at the time they are not invited to speak, but are accepted. Asking questions or expressing their own experiences.Answer to humor - laugh or verbal actions by which students demonstrate an understanding and acceptance of humor used by teacher.SilenceSilence - short periods of silence due to lack of understanding or processing information. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Measurement in total lasted for 6 hours per 40 minutes. The change in the type of interaction was recorded every 3 seconds therefore the results are presented as a total of 4800 units of time recorded. Total time of a lecture with intense interaction and time with no interaction, and dispersion of these forms into indirect and direct communication of lecturer, communication initiated by students, and separately silence is shown in table 2. Table 2 LECTURING WITH INTERACTIONLECTURING WITHOUT INTERACTIONDirect communicationof the lecturer705763638762789746Indirect communicationof the lecturer2833722228Communication initiated by students4248110012Silence250926914 The results in Table 2 are shown in colors and figures in red refer to lecturer A, in a light blue to lecturer B and in green to lecturer C. It is important to emphasize that lecturers A and B have not undergone any form of pedagogical and psychological education while the lecturer C is the one with teaching education and the long teaching experience. Comparing separately teaching of the lecturers it can be seen that the total number of units of time in direct interaction at lecturer A was for 57 units lower in the interactive teaching while at lecturer C the difference was 108 units. In other words, a lecturer has developed communication skills that could easily affect the decrease or increase direct communication in the classroom. The results for lecturer A show that even the lesson with intensive interaction shows a high proportion of time in direct communication. Here one could conclude that the teacher can not cope in interactive situations in the classroom and is not skilled enough to manage communication in the classroom. Results from Table 2 also indicate that the lecturer C has a high number of units of time in indirect communication and even in the teaching situation which was planned without interaction. From this we can conclude that the teacher normally conducts an interactive teaching and find it difficult to exclude students and their participation in the learning process. Lecturer B showed no discrepancies. It is noted that education was set according the agreement considering interaction but significant differences were not shown nor the differences in comparison to other lecturers. Definition that successful communication implies significant differences in outcome of interactive teaching and those without such interaction can be set. Table 3 Lecturer ALecturer BLecturer CInteractiveWithout interactionInteractiveWithout interactionInteractiveWithout interactionListening0000216Praise303091Acceptance2090141Humor12190175Asking111122305Lecturing654726707764598729Giving directions21456254013Criticism30320004Answer13110485Reaction on humor13120101Initiative16810236Silence142609814 Table 3 presents a deeper analysis of forms of communication used in lectures of observed teachers. In the indirect communication of speakers A and B relatively similar results with no major discrepancies were shown. Communication range extends from praising to asking questions but both lectures did not practice listening to the views, experiences and interests of students. Lecturer C again shows the full range of communication forms within indirect speech. Criticism as a form of communication speakers B and C did not use or did but rarely in direct speech. The use of criticism was highly expressed in both teaching situations - interactive and those without interaction at lecturer A. Highly developed communication skills and consistency while using these skills were again showed at lecturer C who previously completed the pedagogical and psychological education. The detailed view shows that using different forms of communication the speaker reduces the total time used in the direct lecture The difference between interactive and instruction without interaction here is 131 and shows a greater number of units of time used in other useful forms of direct communications such as direct giving instructions. Lecturer B who showed some effort to combine different forms of communication in the classroom had a surprising result in the proportion of student initiatives. The proportion of time used in communication of students during the course was extremely low. This may be caused by the common teaching practices of lecturers B which is different from the observed situation. The students were not accustomed to participate and the teacher did not manage to animate students to participate. The lecturers showed wide range of use of different communication forms though some of these forms were presented in very small number of time units that are almost insignificant. Significant difference was shown at lecturer B who had 9 different forms used with interaction and only 3 at the lesson without interaction. The result given at monitoring lecturer C showed greater number of different communication forms in the lesson without communication. It is explainable by the use of criticism that was not a case in the lesson with intensive interaction. It has to be noted that some forms were use in such a small number of time units that this amount should be neglected. Presence of three or even six seconds in a form during the whole lecture is insignificant. It was expected to find that the time spent in indirect communication of a lecturer and the communication of the students was significantly greater in the interactive situation (it is clearly showed in table 2). Having a look at lecturer A the difference between interaction and the lesson without interaction in time units 70:12. The same measure at lecturer B was 37:2 and lecturer C 153:40. Lecturer C showed high result at practicing indirect communication and the time students took opportunity to take part in communication but it was still less than one third of the total time. From the results it is obvious that when inducing interactive teaching the time spent in the communication of students and indirect speech of the lecturers is significantly greater than under the teaching without any interaction. Although, the amount of total time units spent in desirable forms of interaction was unsatisfactory. The result of 70 time units is slightly more than one eights of the total time spent in direct communication. The difference for lecturer B is even greater. Discussion The study, although preliminary, showed that the presented method of monitoring and measurement can gain insight into the use of various forms of communication in the indicated situations. It should be noted that with described monitoring gathered results can be analyzed as the quantity of time in certain desirable or less desirable forms of communication a qualitative discourse analysis cannot be established. The first hypothesis of this preliminary study was not confirmed. The results showed that the ability to communicate varied considerably but the skill is emphasized at the lecturer with pedagogical and psychological education. The results showed that the proportion of time used in communication during the course initiated by students had extremely low scores even in situations with a stimulated interaction between students and lecturers. The total share is significantly lower than the one third of total time. Therefore it can be concluded that the second hypothesis of this study is not confirmed. The third hypothesis was confirmed in terms of overall usage of different forms of communication. However, only the third speaker, the one with the pedagogical and psychological education, demonstrated the use of five different forms of indirect communication while the other lecturers used only four forms. At the beginning of the research it was not planned to neglect results in a very small amount. Due to this fact it has to be concluded that the fourth hypothesis is not confirmed. Not all of the lecturers used more different forms of communication in case of interactivity. The results of the preliminary research gave valuable guidelines for the future study when the researchers need to state which amount of time unit is negligible. According to the results presented the research has confirmed the fifth hypothesis. When inducing interactive teaching the time spent in the communication of students and indirect speech of the lecturers is significantly greater than under the teaching without any interaction. Results, although the hypothesis is confirmed, opened the gate to the new researches about the quality of the teaching process in Croatian lessons of higher education and stated the question about the skills of higher education lecturers. Conclusion The paper presents the research that has opened the door to the problem of communication quality in higher education. A particular problem that is encountered is monitoring the quality of communication and especially lack of research instruments. Therefore further researches that will develop new research methods in the field of communication are particularly recommended. The presented research was only a preliminary one and as this it gave a valuable base for the future study that is being planned. The results and experience gained need to be considered and taken into account in the future. Since the results showed significant differences between teachers with and without the pedagogical and psychological education, these differences should be explored more. There is still an open question about the lesson skills considering teaching methods and method of education of the lecturers staff in Croatian institutions of higher education. The authorities should determine whether there is a need for changes to existing rules and conditions for acquiring teaching competence or teaching positions in higher education system. Until then, recommendation to higher education institutions can be stated about the need of organizing education and training of teachers in the field of communication and encouraging lecturers to take part and improve their skills. References Buljubaai-Kuzmanovi, V., Studentska prosudba u inkovitosti integrativnog u enja. Odgojne znanosti, Vol.9, br.2. 2007. Str. 305-318 Flander, N., Analysing Teacher Behaviour. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1970. Gavari Stark4vb f h v * + rcTATA%jh h CJUaJmH sH h h CJaJmHsHh h CJaJmH sH h h'B*CJaJphh h CJaJmH sH h hGCJH*aJh h CJaJh h 5CJaJh h 5CJH*aJh hP5CJaJh hh5CJaJh hGCJaJh hPCJaJh h5h hP5d C D E F O P pqr|} jk$a$gd>$a$gdGgd gdG$a$gdG+ A B C D F O P cnoqruv{}·zzzncTB"h h 5;CJaJmH sH h h CJaJmH sH h h>CJaJh hG5CJaJ%h hG[CJaJfHq %h hPCJaJfHq h hPCJaJh hP5CJaJh hGCJaJh h CJaJh h CJaJmHsH%jh h CJUaJmH sH  h h 0JCJaJmHsH PR[]Hs !!!$$&&' ''''γγΣΐ~mX(h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tH h h>CJPJaJnHtH#h h>0J5CJaJmH sH %h h>B*CJaJmH phsH h h>5CJaJmH sH h h>CJH*aJmH sH h h>CJaJh h>CJaJmH sH "h h>5;CJaJmH sH h h 5CJaJmH sH RIs !!!!!$$%&&&&gd>$a$gd>&&''''''[PBP$$*$G$Ifa$ $$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS ``` tp#    44 lalp$$*$G$Ifa$ $*$G$If'''''''(("(#(,(-(7(((((({)|)})))*** ***********++++*+++++,, ,,,,,,P-Q-R-T-c-ʺʺʺʺʺʺʺʺʺʺ(h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tHh h>CJaJmH sH h h>5CJaJmH sH h h>CJPJaJnHtHh h>CJaJ1h h>CJPJaJfH nHq tH;''((#(-((Xkd$$IflFnp#nS ``` tp#    44 lalp$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$((((|)tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS ``` tp#    44 lalp|)})~))*tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS ``` tp#    44 lalp** * ***tf[fM$$*$G$Ifa$ $$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS ``` tp#    44 lalp****+tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS  tp#    44 lalp+++++tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS  tp#    44 lalp+++,,,ti[[M$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$ $$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS  tp#    44 lalp,,,,Q-tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd$$IflFnp#nS  t̙̙̙p#    44 lalp̙̙̙Q-R-S-T--tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd $$IflFnp#nS  t̙̙̙p#    44 lalp̙̙̙c------:.;.<.=.P.Q.0003050R0S0T0w0x0{0|0ћkkрk\G)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtHh h>B*CJaJph)h h>B* CJPJaJnHph$>tHh h>B* CJaJph$>h h>5CJaJ(h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tHh h>5CJaJmH sH h h>CJPJaJnHtHh h>CJaJ(h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tHh h>CJaJmH sH ----;.tffX$$*$G$Ifa$$$*$G$Ifa$kd $$IflFnp#nS  t̙̙̙p#    44 lalp̙̙̙;.<.=.R.00000tiaYiiKK$$*$G$Ifa$$a$gd>dhgd> $dha$gd>kd $$IflFnp#nS  tp#    44 lalp04050S0T0x0|000000fkd $$Iflr  "!J   tY#44 la$$*$G$Ifa$ |0000000000000000000000000000000000000000̷̷yd̷̷yd̷)h h>B* CJPJaJnHph$>tHh h>B* CJaJph$>h h>CJaJ)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtHh h>B*CJaJph)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtHh h>B*CJaJph)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtHh h>B*CJaJph'00000000N@@@@@@$$*$G$Ifa$kdW $$Ifl֞  y"nnn tY#44 la00000000@kd^$$Ifl֞  y"nnn tY#44 la$$*$G$Ifa$000011 1 1@kde$$Ifl֞  y"nnn tY#44 la$$*$G$Ifa$0001111 1 1 1 1111111118лsd꬗sdO@h h>CJaJmH sH (h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tHh h>B*CJaJph)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtHh h>B*CJaJph)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtHh h>B*CJaJph)h h>B* CJPJaJnHph$>tHh h>B* CJaJph$>h h>CJaJ)h h>B*CJPJaJnHphtH 111111+5@88$a$gd>kdl$$Ifl֞  y"nnn tY#44 la$$*$G$Ifa$+5,5r7888%8&81828=8>8$dh$*$G$Ifa$$a$gd> 88$8&80828<8>8?8@8K8L8_8`8k8l88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888(h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tHh h>CJaJmH sH h h>CJaJ h h>CJPJaJnHtHL>8?8@8L8`8l8N=///$$*$G$Ifa$$dh$*$G$Ifa$kds$$Ifl֞#Y#$# B Jo  t$44 lall888888@/$dh$*$G$Ifa$kd$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s t$D44 lal$$*$G$Ifa$8888888888888888888888888FfYFfdh$*$G$IfFf$dh$*$G$Ifa$88888888999 9 99999 9$9(9,9094959G9J9L9Ff(Ff$Ff!$dh$*$G$Ifa$888999999 9 9 9 99999999 9#9$9'9(9+9,9/9093949F9G9I9J9K9L9N9O9Q9R9T9U9W9X9b9c9e9f9h9i9j9k9l9m9n9o9p9q9x9y9{9|9}9~999999999999999999999999999 h h>CJPJaJnHtHh h>CJaJZL9O9R9U9X9Y9c9f9i9k9m9o9q9r9y9|9~99999999999Ff3Ff0FfI,$dh$*$G$Ifa$999999999999999999999>>$a$gd> $dha$gd>Ff> $$G$Ifa$Ff9;Ff}7$dh$*$G$Ifa$999999999999999@GGGGGeIfIHJJJKKLLNNPPqqqq^^%h h_p=B*CJaJmH phsH h h_p=CJaJmH sH h 5CJaJmH sH h h>B*CJaJph%h h>B*CJaJmH phsH h h>CJaJmH sH (h h>CJPJaJmH nHsH tH h h>CJOJQJ^JaJ h h>CJPJaJnHtHh h>CJaJ >@@CCGGGeIfIIJJJKKLLNNOPPP7R8RSS4V$a$gd_p=gd>$a$gd>PPPP7R8RSS4V6V8VJVLVX ƽƣƛuieaP hmIhuCJ OJQJ^JaJ hFhuhhu5CJaJhu5CJH*aJhhu5CJH*aJhu5CJaJh6jh6UUh h>5CJaJh h 5CJaJh 5CJaJh h>CJaJh h_p=CJaJmH sH h h>CJaJmH sH h h 5CJaJmH sH 4V6VLVVWW# $dNgdu$&dPa$gdugdu$a$gdG$ & Fdha$gd_p= $dha$gd>ie, E., The Practicum: An example of changes in the teaching and learning process in the European Higher Education Space. Odgojne znanosti, Vol.9, br.1, 2007, str. 119-134 Ghlich, M., Zirfas, J., Der Pdagogische Grundbegriff des Lernens, Odgojne znanosti, Vol. 9, br.2, 2007. Str. 177-194 Waxman, H.C., and Walberg, H.J., Teaching and Productivity, Education and Urban Society, v 18, p 211-220, 1986.     4th Special Focus Symposium on ICSKS: Information and Communication Sciences in the Knowledge Society Zagreb, Croatia (Hrvatska) November 11th to 13th, 2010 #&-/1379;?ABCDEꞸꞸꚖh h>CJaJh6hFhu3hhu6B*CJH*OJQJRHZ^JaJph0hhu6B*CJOJQJRHZ^JaJph0hAhu6B*CJOJQJRHZ^JaJph*hu6B*CJOJQJRHZ^JaJph BCDE$a$gdGgdu,1h. A!"#$% $$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l ``` tp#5n5S5/  /  / / / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l ``` tp#5n5S5/  / /  / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l ``` tp#5n5S5/  / /  / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l ``` tp#5n5S5/  / /  / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l ``` tp#5n5S5/  / / / / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  tp#5n5S5/ /  /  / / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  tp#5n5S5/  / /  / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  tp#5n5S5/  / / / / alp$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  t̙̙̙p#5n5S5/  /  / / / alp̙̙̙$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  t̙̙̙p#5n5S5/  / /  / alp̙̙̙$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  t̙̙̙p#5n5S5/  / / / / alp̙̙̙$$Ifl!vh5n5S5#vn#vS#v:V l  tp#5n5S5/ /  / / / alp;$$If!vh55!5J 55 #v#v!#vJ #v#v :V l tY#55!5J 55 /  / / /  / / / / / /  / a$$If!vh555n55n5n5#v#v#vn#v#vn#v:V l tY#555n55n5/ / / / / a$$If!vh555n55n5n5#v#v#vn#v#vn#v:V l tY#555n55n5/ / / / / a$$If!vh555n55n5n5#v#v#vn#v#vn#v:V l tY#555n55n5/ / / / / a$$If!vh555n55n5n5#v#v#vn#v#vn#v:V l tY#555n55n5/ / / / / a$$Ifl!vh5#5 55B 5J5o 5#v##v #v#vB #vJ#vo #v:V l t$5#5 55B 5J5o 5/ /  / / / / /  / / / / / /  / al!$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l t$D5#55(5d5(5s5/  / / / / / al$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l ``````` tF$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFkd)$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s ``````` tF$D44 lalpF$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l ``````` tF$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFkd$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s ``````` tF$D44 lalpF$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l ``````` tF$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFkd$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s ``````` tF$D44 lalpF$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l ``````` tF$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFkd]$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s ``````` tF$D44 lalpF$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l ``````` tF$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFkd#$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s ``````` tF$D44 lalpF$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l  tFfffffff$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFfffffffkd&$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s  tFfffffff$D44 lalpFfffffff$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l  tFfffffff$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFfffffffkd*$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s  tFfffffff$D44 lalpFfffffff$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l  tFfffffff$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpFfffffffkdM.$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s  tFfffffff$D44 lalpFfffffff$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l  tF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙kd 2$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s  tF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$D44 lalpF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l  tF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙kd5$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s  tF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$D44 lalpF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$$Ifl!vh5#55(5d5(5s5#v##v#v(#vd#v(#vs#v:V l  tF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$D5#55(5d5(5s5/ / / / / alpF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙kd9$$Ifl֞# 1Yp##(d(s  tF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$D44 lalpF̙̙̙̙̙̙̙$$Ifl!vh525555(5d5#v2#v#v#v#v(#vd#v:V l  tF==============$D525555(5d5/ / / / / 27alpF============== kd==$$Ifl֞2 1Yp#2(d  tF==============$D2744 lalpF==============^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmHnHsHtH@`@ NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHDA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 4@4 u0Header  p#66 u0 Header CharCJaJ4 @4 uFooter  p#6!6 u0 Footer CharCJaJH2H u0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJNAN u0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJ8Q8 uapple-style-span4U@a4 7 Hyperlink >*phNrN > Normal (Web)1 *$ mH sH tHpOp >Sadr~aji tablice $d*$$CJOJPJQJ^JaJmH sH tH,O, > short_textPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] GN tt+ 'c-|00889P E,./2<@DGLOQV&'(|)**++,Q--;.0000 1+5>8l888L99>4V E-013456789:;=>?ABCEFHIJKMNPRW*AGNX8@0(  B S  ? DJTt|FO\ cinru} jk  R S ] ^   RSJK $/}    , - ! ! !!!!!R"V"e"f"""""""<#T#%V%y%%%%%%&&(())**-*.*t,u,----&-4->-N-a-n-----------...7.H.[.d.t.z......11335588<<<<g>h>J?L?@@@@AAAACCDDEEEE9G:GHHHHKKK(KKKKKL LLLM%MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMN N%N(N/N1N3N6N9N?NANENHNCFprBFNPor{}UX> G   F$%.  !""?#S#%%%5%7%T%V%y%z%}%~%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&& & &&&&))++-&-(-2-4->-B-M-N-a-b-m-n---------------------------.... . .......!.".%.&.).*.-...1.2.5.7.H.I.K.L.P.Q.S.T.V.W.Y.[.d.e.g.h.j.k.s.t.z.{.}.~....................K'K(KKKKKLL$M%MMMMMMMMMMMMMMN NCNENHN333333 /  !"V"""%&-.<<EEK'K(K{KKKK|LLM%MMMMMMMMMMMMMMENHNK'KMMMMMMMMMMMMMENHN9u JFh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.9uD91K:9s&5y;Aai}u>Ca)msO {%+3r;=|   iG  c':;Z9e9n64CGBWZW<`fv{T&1$26;>??H[  l  " H o }  7 < D r N Y J [ h     $ ( $+ y. . `? U e  ,B.4>GRrMC([2MRshLz   &FIdefh{.|R+,@hC$7;!=M'E38UChS~1!:n408;$Z .$Mphy '+-T?uE;hyN(~0Vkk+ "G||g#!F;]}@[Ei+{ T_nast}Y",kzo1Ia]ogXuy! " A' ) 8 8 G [ !%!tP!`!pg!{u!~!" """ "w("/"4;";"j"###&#-#L>#[L#P#$!$.$%%%7%E%:&x+&,&0&5&`8& C&P&On&J''1'/5'/J'8T'U'"d'p's'((xn(}(\#) &)H)}*$ *rn*gr*\ ++++I+Q+WZ+ ,,,',J,L, h,--R-qB-D-J-P-qU-5. ..../.5.Y.xl.Kr.y. //"/;/nD/M^/A#0c0i01(J1wS1^12d1Wq1722Y 2!26"2T+2|O2,Y23U53=3>3@3[]34 44Y34N4tV4W45L5~.5M5P5Xx566!6^76G677\/787:7J7?N7,X7[7Hs70w788;8C8]8ae8j8k8# 939?=:BA:O:k:Mx:;5;5;/@;=H;X;O0<I4<><pB<W<g]< ==x=&=D=2T=_p=x=f>t>.?3?\w\]]2(]-]>]E]`G]V]oZ]m],^0^d<^I^l^o^t^v^_,_|[_o_`&`2`nC`N`Y``d`e`j`ag8a?ajaw}a}aLbbb? b3b 8bRLb,ObTb}VbubIzb c_-ci1c1c3ckc+~cd$d do!d>d\qdee e2/eLUe`efFf<fEAf\f!fggg ,g0g7gF:gq;gDg\vgI hhhk2h?hOhici i8i=i`aihi j"j%jl1j.Bjnjjqk$kKk(Rkok!l7lbl&tlm PmPmpcmjm0tmnnne#n/n>nPn%oTo"oe#oBo<_o_oPfoppr(pN*pIp%dpxtpTqqJqq q(qOq>]qqq8rj%rLUrR[rs%sg%s6s{?s6DsGsvUsaZs]sashs^}ssttx&t-tMt`t3uF8uLuk\usuEwu8v9vWvwZw cwcwgwjw x&x%+x:x)Yxnx'y)yUyYnySzZ)zgDzPz,UzZYz.]zhz ozuzRzzq{(1{:{<{}R{|e{i{|||&.|Y2|}%-}GJ}W}Pk}t} ~.G~NM~h|~&=LJn^qr(j7$()H7W}njDY|ppiyQ8z89FLMBd!!8*4rFNw3GGZPa;k !1Gaofx]]z?+RY`Nmo]Sxh7 69bFG|H 0T;>&+UL B$H,Xv_| 8.D[_\u!%}\'a3F_bu}*AZ`cei>B9OO$o<\J{+Q/>2^{ 66o}8=LtcSoykt n'3#&+5HxVZZdhl  7hDMPZdahqzw*@GH^~x+|k:SEvUO!'"j9BF]X$[\*ERXG[Ip *8%>2Fxb6cP~006*ewzA>b4gkMx"(F)T;KvW=bVm6GBW8kfCaE^z}5VxNBRve\}i0xAVWgg{/"@i\^[ 2 $QHeAm{D{)(?GDYGfhu en~ !~55\ADVVxKz9APU>c _T2:GKy{A<Vuuw05t6dBjBsg ']3`.fweg',>:KmFvU`k+(._s -#G'OVK^em~<F VmVw$'k6@B\W_}.s3"ZO$7SS!A(w.j^aUI$ ,n8aal8mosn339e=?O@CkNq_}2K0R "M\b%6dff um+q0m`[oEoRSX6<'<+bc24EVmv(>FVz<$t -4.`jFXp |3:[>JN}'0JUWn6HTfH 67\i'E6Fkl= @bdp<rg%w|4N-SUzVb,i0Q8\"u)!\9OES] i|G'oDDGH'IbYq #d$.(R9ix@DEzv]a?>;@@IK?be$y3?CNarf!s,\3qa| 2GQ\k*vf~Q #%5W/cyW~6?AGk/)Cc"gUf 3 _Dyg"9BhE"mf ( ^5lze#,6;BAwNESei )R).CT{e 5P=CM`4 -"-49?fWcz  D.\5%:= TbhI/I^$)30Gr^siww>6U^{w$ys-R/I{#(Pt_0:i; Dfsu,.#EGXG/j3DFX?Yn]os1 uZBdo &KKXf[]{X\)yY'7MS||4=Z#\pvAI6Qab hEhQ 1))KP,4:]n^GO!:$Om^aiDpepsMM@EEEELKLGN@8@VP@Unknowng*Ax Times New RomanTimes New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial;(SimSun[SO5. .[`)Tahoma7.@ CalibriA BCambria Math"1SfSf B' B'!4doMoM 2qHP ??Y2!xxCAnaliza komunikacijskog modela interakcije u visokoakolskoj nastaviReferadaNatasa Oh+'0px   , 8 DPX`hDAnaliza komunikacijskog modela interakcije u visokokolskoj nastavi ReferadaNormalNatasa2Microsoft Office Word@@Rک@Rک B՜.+,D՜.+, hp  XPOUZ'oM DAnaliza komunikacijskog modela interakcije u visokokolskoj nastaviDAnaliza komunikacijskog modela interakcije u visokokolskoj nastavi TitleNaslov 8@ _PID_HLINKSAt*mailto:lj.bakic-tomic@ufzg.hr   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{|}~Root Entry F@ 0کData Y A1TableziGWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q