Comparative Analysis of Education Systems: Finland, Singapore, Brunei

This report provides a comparative analysis of the education systems in Finland, Singapore, and Brunei. It highlights key differences in teacher qualifications, teaching methodologies, and student performance. The report contrasts the Finnish focus on collaborative learning with Singapore's emphasis on competitive learning, and notes the differences in teacher training and student entry ages. It also examines the impact of poverty and student attitudes on educational outcomes. The report offers recommendations for Brunei to improve its education system, including employing qualified teachers, fostering a conducive learning environment, and addressing poverty. The analysis draws on research from Happo, Määttä, Uusiautti (2013), Kelly, Lesh, and Baek (2014), and Sahlberg (2007) to support its findings and recommendations.

U NIT:
NAME:
DATE:

ASSIGNMENT 2
Education in Finland is aimed to promoting collaborative learning while education in
Singapore mainly encourages competitive learning (Kelly, Lesh, and Baek, 2014). Finnish
education system has the best qualified teachers who are selected from the 10% master’s
graduates while in Singapore teachers are sourced from diploma level (Happo, Määttä, and
Uusiautti, 2013). In Singapore, children start receiving formal education at age of 3 year
while In Finland children do not start school until they are seven years old. In Finland,
teachers are supposed to have acquired a master’s degree which is not a necessary
requirement in Singapore.
In order for Brunei to attain improvements in education, there should be good relationship
between teachers and the students which is maintained by the high discipline of the students.
Brunei government should participate in the improvement of education system by offering
incentives and scholarship schemes to students. The government should eliminate poverty by
providing incentives to families so that they would send their children to school.Brunei
should encourage teachers and students to always introduce and try new ideas and cultivate
creativity in school. (Sahlberg, 2007)
The most important action to be taken by Brunei in order to improve in education is to
employ the best teachers. Also the education ministry needs to improve the education system
by setting assessment of both the teachers and the students. Most of all the government needs
to come up with a strategy which reduces poverty and ensures all children attends school.

Assignment 3
Student comes from different backgrounds. Poverty is one of the factors that affect students’
performance. Lack of resources in the families discourages the efforts of the students in class.
This results to school dropout which increases the number of street children. Attitude is
another factor that facilitates varying performance for students. Also discipline is a major
factor that affects the attainment of good grades by the students.
Students are not given feedback of their performance after a test. The performance of the
students is also affected by the attitude of the teachers, their ability, quality of teaching and
the classrooms environment. Students’ attainment is also affected by the teacher’s knowledge
on the subject matter.
In order to tackle these issues, Brunei should employ qualified teachers who can deliver
quality education to the students. There should also be a good and conducive learning
environment for students in Brunei. The government should provide incentives that will help
eliminate poverty.

References
Happo, I., Määttä, K. and Uusiautti, S., (2013). How do early childhood education teachers
perceive their expertise? A qualitative study of child care providers in Lapland, Finland.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), pp.273-281.
Kelly, A.E., Lesh, R.A. and Baek, J.Y. eds., (2014). Handbook of design research methods in
education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and
teaching. Routledge.
Sahlberg, P., 2007. Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach.
Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), pp.147-171