Teaching Methods in Singapore and Thailand: Proposals for Vietnam
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract: This article is part of the 2012-2014 Scientific and Technological Subject at the Ministerial level titled “Comparison in Secondary Educational Model in Singapore and Thailand: Lessons for Vietnam” carried out by the Vietnam-based regional training centre of SEAMEO (SEAMEO RETRAC), This research work has gathered the data from the Principals and Deputy Principals of the secondary schools in Singapore and Thailand. The research group has used the in-depth interview method and English is the language in use. In this article, the authors have got an insight into the effective teaching methods in the secondary schools in Singapore and Thailand in order to make the proposals for the teachning methods in the secondary education in Vietnam. The results show that the student-centered method, the experience-based learning method, the constructive learning method and the teaching method for each object, all have the results in the process of student’s learning. More importantly, the results of the research show that “understanding the students” is the foundation of the selection and designing of the teaching strategies and techniques in the secondary education. The article has also put forth the proposals for the secondary education of Vietnam.
Keywords: Teaching methods, student-centered method, differences, experience-based learning, constructive learning.References
[2] Glasersfeld, E. von., Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning, Falmer Press: London, 1995.
[3] Boyd, W. L., The “R’s of school reform” and the politics of reforming or replacing public schools, Journal of Educational Change, 1 (3), (2000) 225.
[4] Gultekin, M., Teaching practices in teacher training programmes. In M. Gultekin (Ed.), Practical manual in preschool education for teacher candidates and teachers (pp. 1-10). Eskişehir: Anadolu University Open Education Faculty Press, 2004.
[5] Gardner, R. & W. E. Lambert, Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning, Rowley: Newbury House, Rowley, 1972.
[6] Oxford, R., & Crookall, D., Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of techniques, TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), (1990) 9.
[7] Wenden, A. & J. Rubin (editors), Learner strategies in language learning, Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, 1987.
[8] Daneman, M., Working memory as a Predictor of Verbal Fluency, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20 (6), (1991) 445.
[9] Prawat, R. S., Teaching for understanding: Three key attributes, Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(4), (1989) 315.
[10] Palincsar, A.S. & Klenk, L., Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (4), (1992) 211.
[11] Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. Research and the teacher; A qualitative introduction to school-based research. Michigan: Rutledge. Inquiry-Based Learning. Retrieved from http://www.lyndhurstps.vic.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=24., 1989.
[12] Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy T. M. & Perry J. D., Theory into Practice: How do we Link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed), Instructional Technology: Past, present and future, Co: Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, 1995.
Rivers, W., Communicating Naturally in a Language: Theory and Practice in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.