LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT IN STEM SUBJECT: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN LATVIA AND FINLAND A COMPARATIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2018vol1.3322Keywords:
stem subjects, learning achievement, education, performanceAbstract
Education is a never ending learning process. Learning achievement in STEM is the academic disciplines of science technology engineering and mathematics. This article reports a study on the impact of learning achievement in STEM subject in Latvia and Finland. This report bring collection of knowledge and information from other writers and OECD. Learning achievement is the result of an activity that has been done, created both individually and in groups- education. Active learning increases student performance in STEM subjects (Science, Technologies, Engineering, and Mathematics). The basic qualification for school teachers in Finland is the master´s degree and in Latvia the basic or minimum qualification for teaching needed to have at least bachelors’ degree and teaching certificate. Research evidence shows that performance in Latvia was slightly below the OECD average in STEM subjects.
The impact of socio-economic factors as student’s performance must be taken into account with comparative studies both in Finland and Latvia, and how Latvia and Finlandachieve their expected goals?
The theoretical study is trying to investigate the reasons of differences in learning achievement in Latvian and Finnish schools; also what influences learners success and achievement in mathematics and science. It is important from a pedagogical point of view to provide student with relevant practical and theoretical information and to promote their knowledge.
Downloads
References
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and company
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school system come out on top. Mckinsey & Company, New York
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Entwisted, N., Skinner, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about “Good Teaching” An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education and Development, 19, 5-26
Finnish National Board of Education (2008). Basic Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/page.asp?Path=447,4699,4847
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active learning in higher education, 5, 87-100
Hein, H. (1990). The Exploratorium. The museum as Laboratory. Washington D.C.U.S.A: The Smithsonian institution
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. M (2004). Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter? GSE publication, University of Pennsylvania; Scholary Commons Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from https: 77respository upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1134 & context=gse_pubs
Kang, S., & Berliner, D. C. (2012). The Federal School and Staffing Survey (SASS) and Teacher follow – up survey (TFS). Teacher Education, Vol. 47, 268 – 282.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2002). Lectures’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conception of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.
Kiselova, R., & Gravite, A. (2017). STEM education policies and their impact on the Labour market in Latvia. Bulgarian Comparative Education society (BCES) (15th) and the International Partner Conference of the International Research Centre (IRC) “Scientific Cooperation” (5th) (Borovets, Bulgaria, June 2017)
Kupari, P. (1996). Changes in teachers’ beliefs of mathematics teaching and learning. In G. Törner (Ed), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs 11, proceeding of the 2nd MAVI workshop (pp. 25-31). University of Duisberg.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2003). The effect of pedagogical training and teaching experience on approach to teaching. Paper presented at the 11th EARLI conference, Paduna, Italy, August 26-30, 2003.
Mikkola, A. (2000). Teacher education in Finland. In: Teacher Education Policies in the European Union. Procceding of the Conference of Teacher Education Policies in the European Union and Quality of Lifelong Learning, Loule, 22 and 23 May 2000. Portuguese Presidency of the Council of The European Union- Ministry of Education. Lisbon.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge – creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD publishing.
OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: OECD indications, OECD publishing, Paris Retrieved from htt://dx.doi.org/101787/eag-2014-en
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What makes a School Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV), OECD Publishing, Paris Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/101787/9789264201156-en
OECD. (2014b). Teacher remuneration in Latvia. An OECD perspective, OECD Review of Teacher Remuneration in Latvia_ops_FINAL.pdf Retrieved from www.oecd.org/edu/OECD%20
Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Education Research Journal 2004- Willey Online Library
Pipere, A. (2005). Primary and secondary teachers: beliefs and performance related self. Perceptions about engage learning.Baltic Journal of Psychology, 6, 32-44.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1991). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Suffolk: Society for Research into Higher education & Open University Press
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A Phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science teaching and learning. Learning Instruction, 4, 217-231
Salmi, H. (2003). Science centres as learning laboratories. International Journal of Technology Management 25 (5), 460-476
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93-112.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education 41, 299-325.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (2nded). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA, 1370-1373.
Shalberg, P. (2007). Education Policies for Raising student Learning: The Finnish Approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (2), 147- 171.
Slavin, R. E. (1997). Co-operative learning among students. In Stern, D., & Huber, G. L. (Eds) Active learning for students and teachers. Reports from eight countries. OECD, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 159-173.
Stoloff, D. (1989, March). Shaping science and math curriculum in the age of Glasnost: reports from Soviet classrooms. Paper presented at the comparative and International Education society Conference, Boston, MA
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87
Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., &Nevgi, A. (2004). Variation in approaches to University teaching: The role of regulation and motivation. A paper presented at the EARLISIG Higher Education Conference June 18-24, 2004
