Tímarit um menntarannsóknir - 01.01.2007, Page 155

Tímarit um menntarannsóknir - 01.01.2007, Page 155
153 Tímarit um menntarannsóknir, 4. árgangur 2007 discussed and a mutual assumption reached. It was decided to use interpretive analysis regarding the field notes whereby conclusions drawn from the data were carefully inspected with the idea of finding a particular structure, theme and design which could best describe what occurs in the classes. (Gall, Borg and Gall, 1996). Results Not a single teacher of the eighteen in the three countries said they had received any education on multi-cultures or multicultural teaching in their courses. Many, though, believed they had acquired expertise on this matter due to their own roots, experience, further training and from courses. The results indicate that the attitude of Canadian teachers towards culturally diverse learners is dissimilar to the attitudes of Norwegian and Icelandic teachers. In Manitoba the understanding of multicultural teaching is deeper than the other two countries. Canadians do not expect everyone to be the same and should act according to a certain culture but rather that everyone is able to give and take, be proud of themselves and their origins and add to the new Canadian culture. On the other hand, Norway and Iceland keenly tried to shape the children to the practices of the school system and community and yet passiveness seems to exist regarding their position. The answer by all participants concerning the question on culturally diverse learners’ adaptation to the new culture allude to substantial difficulties en route. This was strongly perceived by Norwegian and Icelandic teachers. Discussion All the Canadian teachers, three Norwegian teachers and two Icelandic teachers felt that they have through their own life experience, further studies or short courses acquired skills to address multicultural teaching. It is interesting to note that none of the eighteen teachers of three countries could say they had received grounding as undergraduates for multicultural teaching. There was a real disparity of attitudes, methods and competence among the teachers to manage multicultural teaching. The Canadian teachers appeared to have the best position regarding preparation, more mature attitudes and demonstrating more responsibility during lessons than their Norwegians or Icelanders counterparts. On the other hand itshould be noted- that the skill of the majority of Norwegian or Icelandic participants to teach culturally diverse learners does not fall within their requirements as set by the authorities (St.meld., 2002; Elementary School Law, 1995). Study resources in Manitoba (Canada) are part of general classes, maintaining that it is best to meet the students’ individual needs in the class with co-operation and multi-study strategies. Norway emphasised that culturally diverse learners receive remedial lessons both within and outside of the classroom. Icelandic teachers appeared to dismiss student’s difficulties or had no idea what resources were available. Both Iceland and Norway demanded less of culturally diverse learners at the beginning of their school careers. The results of this research show that the majority of Icelandic and Norwegian participants have not acquired the necessary understanding for multicultural teaching and are not sufficiently prepared to meet the requisites of culturally diverse learners. Heimildir Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Routledge Falmer. Ainscow, M. (1991). Effective schools for all: an alternative approach to special needs in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(3), 293–308. Ainscow, M. og Hart, S. (1992). Moving practice forward. Support for learning, 7(3), 115–120. Fjölmenningarleg kennsla í Manitoba í Kanada, í Noregi og á Íslandi
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172

x

Tímarit um menntarannsóknir

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Tímarit um menntarannsóknir
https://timarit.is/publication/1140

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.