| Summary: | 碩士 === 南華大學 === 應用社會學系教育社會學碩士班 === 102 === This study aims to discuss the Finnish " left no-one behind " philosophy of education, compares their differences with Taiwan Education, and implements the Finnish relevant teaching strategies in the classroom in Taiwan in order to see how their effectiveness in the implementation process and illustrates the difficulties and problems encountered by the instructor in the teaching process from the "Structure and Action theory " and " system and lifeworld " two theoretical perspectives.
This study adopts literature analysis and action research, the former mainly for educational literature of Finland and Taiwan. As a teacher and researcher, after understanding Finnish teaching strategies, I implemented it in my second grade classroom. I purposive sample in 3 criteria --"academic achievement", "learning attitude", "daily routine" to choose 8 lag students as subjects and in addition, also interviewed three elementary teachers’ opinions about the teaching strategies adopted in this study.
Through the above methods, the conclusions of this study were as follows:
First, the comparison between Finland and Taiwan Education: from the view of structure, the core concept of Finnish education is "left no-one behind"; Taiwan is the gifted education, emphasizing on competition, focusing on score, ranking. In Taiwan, the school administration is basically in the instructor's position; Finland, the school administration is to assist teachers in teaching work. From the point of view of actors, Finland teacher have very high teaching autonomy. Their administrative work is must related to teaching, so they can focus on teaching. Comparatively speaking Taiwan teacher's autonomy is relatively low, greatly affected by the school administration. And they have many administrative works nothing to do with teaching. From the teaching perspective, because there is no uniform midterm exam, curriculum, teaching and is flexibility to adjust to student’s need in Finland. Relatively speaking, there is a unified monthly exam in Taiwan, therefore, curriculum, teaching schedule must be consistent.
Second, The effectiveness of teaching strategies implemented in Finland: for these students who learn behind, some teaching strategies work, but some does not work. However, the school having a uniform curriculum and uniform monthly exam, teachers have to catch up the teaching schedule to finish the work, so even if some teaching strategies work, teachers have no enough time to teach according to student’s need. And Taiwan teacher’s work contains many things other than teaching, so they are too busy to ignore teaching.
Reflections: whether from cultural factors (emphasis in gifted education rather than left no-one behind, monitoring rather than trust, learning objectives rather than focusing on the process) or teaching site factors (uniform curriculum and uniform midterm exam, many classroom chores) the effectiveness of the implementation of the teaching strategies are limited by structure in Taiwan. However, as an actor, through training, education, reading or the self-reflection and conscious in the process of teaching, the teacher still can change their mind and affect the structure within her sphere of competence.
|
|---|
