“One tablet per child” – hardware is hardly enough By Paul Wedel

 The work of K.I.Asia in helping Thai schools make better use of IT has taught us that far more important than any hardware is the software provided with it and the management that supports it. If tablets are to be really useful in Thai schools, much work needs to be done before the goodies are handed out.

Thai teachers in K.I.Asia’s One Computer Classroom program, now supported by Boeing, learn how to incorporate video into their teaching and how to encourage students to use the computer in group learning projects.

.Here is my list of the ten most important steps to take before 800,000 tablets are bought and distributed to Thai schools.

 1.     Study the research on use of laptops elsewhere in the world as well as Thailand’s own experience in using computers in the classroom

2.     Decide which parts of the Thai curriculum, for each subject, at each grade level, are best taught using the tablet and which are best taught by other methods

3.     Develop specific teaching methodologies and lesson plans that will enable teachers to make effective use of the devices for those parts of the curriculum

4.     Digitize existing textbooks and load them onto the tablets

5.     Identify, review and select available teaching software for the tablets, encouraging development of Thai-specific learning software, if necessary, and load the software onto the tablets

6.     Identify additional reading for the advanced student and the slow learner for each subject at each level, digitize it and load it onto the tablets

7.     Launch a pilot program in at least 100 schools to test the devices, teaching methodologies, support systems and digitized materials. Small, poor and rural schools should be the focus of the pilots because everything that works in these schools will probably work even better in the larger, richer schools.

8.     Train pilot school teachers in the tablet methodologies, software and materials

9.     Train pilot school administrators on the best ways to manage, technically support and evaluate teaching with the tablets

10.  Evaluate the experience of the pilot schools and adjust materials, methodologies, software, technical support systems and management accordingly and roll out to other schools in a systematic way

Clearly, there is much work to do to convert a catchy campaign promise into a viable educational program, but it doesn’t have to take years. A pilot program could begin in 2012 and a phased roll-out started a year later. Success or failure will depend on how well the program is planned and implemented, not on which hardware is bought or how quickly it is handed out.

These are my thoughts. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how best to introduce tablet computers to Thai schools so they can help make a real and much-needed improvement in learning.

How do tablets help learning? – Let me count the ways by Paul Wedel

The campaign pledge of the Pheu Thai Party to provide primary school students with tablet computers has stirred considerable controversy, with critics abounding.

Dr. Olarn Chaipravat, chief economic strategist of the party, insists the new government will go ahead with its promise to provide Android tablet computers to 800,000 to 1 million middle-school children nationwide in 2012.  Party officials say the primary school computer handout will be followed by distribution of more powerful devices to students in the higher grades. Dr. Olarn says the program is “aimed at solving the issue of the lack of skills in both foreign languages and mathematics among our children" – undoubtedly a good objective.

Five Reasons Why Students Should Use a Tablet PC

K.I.Asia’s yearsof experience in the use of computers in Thai schools and recent research in other countries indicate that tablets can help. Let me list the ways:

•       An intuitive interface and the use of an electronic pen make tablets easy for even very young students to use
•      Tablets help students organize notes, presentations and texts for more efficient learning
•       Journal diagrams can easily be drawn, annotated and shared
•       Teachers can mark, comment on and return students’ electronic documents more efficiently
•       Pupils find tablet computers fun to use, so they are motivated to do school work on them
•       Working in groups is more efficient because work files can be easily shared
•       Easy wireless links allow in-school communication as well as access to the Internet.
•       Tablets can be used both in school and at home
•       Tablets eliminate the need for a “computer room” filled with desktop PCs where little subject learning takes place
•       Books can be read on screen, replacing heavy paper books and cutting costs for printing and distributing them
•       Assignment dates can be transmitted to tablets, reminding children of work due

•       Educational videos and other visual materials can be used that research shows enable children to learn more effectively
•       Numerous “learning apps” are available and the number is growing
•       Children can learn at their own pace with materials based on individual learning needs
•        “Parent Portals” can be set up that allow parents to see their children’s schedules, teacher contact information, grades and information on helping their children learn

To reduce concerns about access to inappropriate web sites, technology such as the “Kineo” tablet could be used. This allows school officials to control the books and lessons that appear on each student's Kineo. Another possibility is “SafeStart,” a controlled interface that allows children to access only approved applications and websites.

There are, of course, some downsides to use of tablets in schools. These include:
•       High initial cost that takes money away from other important needs like better salaries for teachers
•       Time needed for initial set-up, including the loading of appropriate content
•       Need for good technical support and fast wireless access
•       Short battery life that may require in-school re-charging
•       Low screen illumination
•       Electronic pens are easily lost
•       Wireless networks can be slow, frustrating downloads of some media

 The latest tablets, however, have been improved to deal with some of the technical problems cited in earlier studies at much lower costs. But hardware selection is not the critical issue.

 A recent study published in the Journal of Research on Technology in Education focused on the use of tablets for children aged three to six. It concluded that there was high child interest and quick learning on the tablets. “Although technical issues in learning this new technology were encountered, children were interested and persisted without frustration,” the authors wrote. “What seems to matter for children’s learning is the ways teachers choose to implement this technology.”

 Although international experience with tablets in the classroom has generally been positive, how best should the devices be introduced and managed in Thailand?  In my next blog I will suggest the ten things that should be done before the new Thai government distributes tablet computers to schools. In the meantime, I welcome your comments.

Helping teachers in Thailand teach inquiry-based learning and critical thinking -- by Paul Wedel

In my last blog I noted the rising concerns about the problems the Thai education system has had in producing students who know how to learn and think for themselves. Low scores on national examinations have shown that the system is failing many students. More importantly, the graduates of the Thai system, albeit with notable exceptions, typically have few of the critical thinking, teamwork, analytical and communication skills needed to be competitive in the global economy.

How can we change the system so that it helps students develop these needed skills?



A Thai teacher learns how to use inquiry-based, experiential
learning methodologies for teaching science under the
MSD-INSTEP project with K.I.Asia.



My own experience, as a teacher in the Thai educational system and much later as supervisor of various educational projects of the Kenan Institute Asia, has shown me that the answers to this question are complex and difficult.

Money is almost always a factor in development problems, but it is not the amount of money spent on education, but the way it is spent in Thailand that is the issue. Thailand spends about 20% of its national budget on education – more than many countries. In terms of GDP, Thailand spends about 4% of GDP on education – compared to 3.1% in Singapore, for example. Unfortunately, much of the money goes into a large, centralized bureaucracy, physical plant and a large number of one-off initiatives that often have little long-term impact in addressing core educational problems and sometimes distract education officials from their main tasks.

Teachers, the most important factor in an effective educational system, are paid so little that the many of the most competent leave the classroom to find other jobs (or never go into education in the first place). This is particularly true for those with skills in areas such as science, math and English that are valued by the private sector. But lack of money is only part of the problem; lack of accountability may be more significant. Systems need to be implemented to hold people at various levels in the educational system accountable for the outcome of their efforts. This means significant changes in management, motivation and methodology, whether for school managers, teachers or ministry officials.

We have found that most school managers rarely visit the classroom so they have little idea how well or how poorly their teachers are teaching. The promotion system is focused on seniority and paper degrees; it does little to reward effective teaching.

Teachers are often forced to teach subjects outside of their area of expertise. Particularly in small, rural schools, many science and English teachers have their degrees unrelated subjects. In a recent training of science teachers run by K.I.Asia, we were surprised to find that more than a third of the science teachers had majored in physical education. 

In its latest assessment of school quality, the Ministry of Education reported that 4,885 primary schools failed to meet even the ministry’s minimum standards of quality. Most of these were small schools in outlying areas. But even larger urban schools have been slow to adopt teaching methodologies that lead to higher level learning.

It must be recognized that it is not easy to switch from a system based on a teacher lecturing and students taking notes to a system that encourages questions, thinking and real learning. First of all, most teachers have never experienced this kind of teaching themselves. This kind of teaching is rarely used in the teaching of teachers. The materials and equipment available to classroom teachers are often inadequate for inquiry-based or experience-based learning. Class sizes often are so large that there is no time for teachers to give students the individual attention that is often needed in learning to ask questions and think critically. Teaching methodologies that work for 30 students in a class simply break down when class sizes reach 50 or more. Teachers’ time is further reduced by a host of bureaucratic requirements, special projects, sports days and other events that often take priority over classroom learning.

Given these obstacles, it is clear that changing teaching styles in the classroom requires a multi-faceted and long-term approach. The typical two-day training course on new methodologies is insufficient to do anything other than make teachers even more dissatisfied with their own teaching and more frustrated that they unable to change.

K.I.Asia is involved with two projects that seek to make such change possible.

The first is a long-term project funded by MSD Thailand to support inquiry-based science teaching in Phang-nga province. Called MSD IN-STEP, this project has involved not just the training of teachers in a better methodology, but the training of school managers, educational supervisors and mentor-teachers. All of these people must work together to support the inquiry-based methodology that was adapted from work in the United States by the Merck Institute for Science Education and the Teachers College at Columbia University. Responding to the practical needs in the Thai classroom, the project includes development of new science teaching modules with inquiry-based materials and learning media. To save teachers preparation time, lab boys and girls are trained to set up experiments. To help teachers who struggle with the new methodology, a mentoring system has been established to allow teachers to help one another.

Although it is still early, a positive correlation has been found between student time in the inquiry-based system and standard Thai examination scores even though the Thai exam does not effectively test students’ ability to use the scientific methods to solve problems or pursue inquiries.

These positive results have encouraged the Ministry of Education and the Institute for the Promotion of Science and Technology Teaching (IPST) to expand the IN-STEP approach to seven more provinces and to extend it to include new math teaching methodologies. The project brings in expert advice from the Columbia Teachers’ College and the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This second project, dubbed “UPGRADE” seeks to strengthen the capacity of science and mathematics teachers through stakeholder engagement, policy advocacy, well-designed instructional media and tools, professional development for teacher trainers, mentors and principals. It also includes non-formal education activities to increase awareness of best practices in mathematical and science education.

Despite initial successes, it is not at all clear whether these programs will succeed in changing the Thai education system.

Will they be given the time and institutional support needed to demonstrate effectiveness? Will they lead to needed changes in the national examinations? Can they be scaled up to the national level? Will the new methodologies be taught at the teacher training institutions – particularly the Rajabhat Institutes, which are not under the authority of OBEC? Will future governments provide the budgets needed to fund the educational materials needed? Even more important, will future government leaders provide the money and policies to attract and reward competent teachers? Will school managers become better able to identify and promote the most competent teachers? Will schools succeed in building mentoring and teacher networking mechanisms? Can resources from local government and the private sector be better mobilized?

These are difficult questions, but unless they can be answered effectively, the disappointing exam results this year will become an annual occurrence and the harbinger of a stagnating economy.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the tough questions facing Thai education and the efforts to find answers.

Talking about development: Thailand’s need for effective learning, logical th...

Talking about development: Thailand’s need for effective learning, logical th...: " K.I.Asia President Paul Wedel discusses inquiry-based learning with students in Phang-nga province.  Reports that Thai students per..."

Thailand’s need for effective learning, logical thinking and creativity -- By Paul Wedel



K.I.Asia President Paul Wedel discusses
inquiry-based learning with students in
Phang-nga province.

 Reports that Thai students performed poorly on the latest national exams have re-ignited concerns that the education system, despite numerous efforts at reform, is still failing to teach students to think. This failure undermines Thailand’s effort to provide the higher value-added services and products that will enable Thais to achieve higher incomes, more satisfying jobs and a higher quality of life. To achieve these goals, Thais have to produce more intellectual property, compete effectively in global markets and become more innovative.

The latest scores on the Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET) indicate that things are getting worse instead of better. Average scores for all eight O-NET subjects were less than 50% and scores in the subjects that are arguably the most important for Thailand’s competitiveness were particularly poor. The average score for mathematics was less than 15%; the score for English was 42.6%; and the tally for science was 30.9%. The problem is that it is unclear what to make of these numbers, or, indeed, whether they have any meaning.

OBEC Deputy Secretary-General Somkiat Chobphol partly blamed the low O-NET scores on  exam questions that were mismatched to what students were taught. The fact that scores went down compared to previous years may indicate that something was different about this year’s test rather than a sudden dip in student learning. In addition, ONET needs to be put in a clear and useful context to enable it to be helpful in making educational improvements and tracking their impacts. This context should make explicit each year how the text compares to the previous year, how it relates to different elements in the curriculum, whether it is meant to have any ability to predict future performance and what thinking skills (if any) it is meant to measure. Such improvements would be helpful as feedback to teachers to show what areas of the curriculum need more time, what teaching methods are working (or not working) and what thinking skills are being learned (or not). Of particular importance is the need to reformulate the test to enable it to help assess students’ ability to reason and apply their knowledge rather than simply regurgitate memorized information. Testing these abilities would provide important motivation for schools to do a better job of teaching them.

Business leaders routinely complain that Thai students are poorly equipped with tools essential to competing in the global economy – critical thinking, working in teams, asking the right questions, finding new information, analyzing that information and communicating the results. Research and development lags because the Thai education system produces two few scientists with the skills for ground-breaking research and does tool little to encourage and support those that have those skills.

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej recognized the need for an education system that helped students learn to think, not just memorize, more than 50 years ago. “Learning to think in an orderly or goal-oriented way is a much needed skill these days. If you cannot think, you cannot develop,” the King said in a speech in 1955. His calls for education that encourages reasoning skills have been repeated many times since then, but the Thai education system has struggled to achieve this critical capability.

Recent education reforms have all noted the need to move away from rote memorization. Education Minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat, commenting on three years of falling scores and a widening gap with the education provided by Thailand’s economic competitors, correctly identified the problem as unchanged teaching styles that focus on memorization rather than understanding. This insight has driven high-level policy statements since the 1990s.

If the problem is well understood, why hasn’t top-level understanding of the need for change made any difference in the classroom?

I’ll look at this question and the role of the Kenan Institute Asia in seeking answers in my next blog, but in the meantime, I welcome your comments and questions.