Education reform gains some momentum

From left: Acharn Sunan Tangkham, Thai teacher; Acharn Nuansiri Phongthawonpinyo, Deputy Principal and Academic Director; Acharn Ubon Rungrujee, math teacher; Acharn Suwaree Raoprajong, social studies teacher; Acharn Naowarat Rungrueangbangchan, science teacher

Last year, the school’s administration and teaching staff spent much of their time fleshing out the ministry’s rather sparten standards and content guidelines to produce curricula they believed appropriate to their students and community.

They attended seminars and workshops conducted by the ministry, local universities and private organisations. At the same time, they were in regular contact with the staff at schools in their own school cluster, especially the school chosen to pilot the curriculum a year before the others.

Thus, when this year’s first term began in May, they were very much ready to go with the first stage of what is to be a three-year implementation programme. This year the reform curriculum is confined primarily to the first and fourth years of secondary school (Mathayom 1 and 4). Next year this will extend to M2 and M5 with full implementation coming a year later.

Nationwide, things have not gone as smoothly. Curriculum development is a complex and time-consuming process and many schools lack the resources and experienced staff of a school like Sai Nam Phueng. Widespread confusion has been the inevitable result.

To their credit, ministry officials became aware of the problem early on and moved quickly to help. Curriculum committees for each subject area were established and a far more detailed set of standards and guidelines were developed and distributed as a set of booklets (saara kan rianruu kaen klang).

While this has probably been a boon to the majority of schools, it has not been universally welcomed. Some teachers who had spent a year or more in feverish development of their own curricula were taken aback when the new material arrived only a few short weeks before the term was to begin. There was considerable confusion as to how much of what they had developed could actually be used.

Initially, schools had been given considerable leeway as to how and when the core topics would be taught. The new guidelines are far more detailed and prescriptive. M1 science, for example, now stipulates 52 expected learning outcomes and 53 content guidelines. In its original form, the Basic Education Curriculum had only eight core topics and 11 standards for all 12 years of science instruction.

When the learning post met with Acharn Nuansiri Phongthawonpinyo, Sai Nam Pheung’s Deputy Principal and Academic Director, she was busily paging through one of the ministry’s newly released subject booklets and comparing it with the curriculum the school had developed over the previous year.

“This set of booklets just came out in late April – after we had finished our own school curriculum based on the first set of ministry guidelines. So now we are comparing and checking if the curricula we’ve finished cover the requirements stipulated in the subject booklets. The ministry has requested that we cover at least 60 percent of the new guidelines. It is not necessary that we are exactly the same.” Acharn Nuansiri explains.

Schools, in fact, now have far more freedom in curriculum design despite the new guidelines, she says.

“Under the previous system, we had prescribed textbooks. Now we are free to draw from a wide variety of sources. We are able to go beyond the standard curriculum and we have some flexibility in sequencing.

“The biggest change from the old, however, is in teaching methods. In the past, the teacher would follow the book. Now, the teachers have to try to help students to discover knowledge for themselves. The teacher is no longer the one who gives all the information,” Acharn Nuansiri explains.

The school’s curriculum was developed internally by the teaching staff, she says, but they did benefit from frequent contacts with schools within their own Benjarsiri School Cluster. Discussions with teachers at the cluster’s pilot school, Phra Khanong Wittayalai, were especially helpful because they were able to avoid some of the problems experienced by that school.

Sai Nam Pheung’s own problems, Acharn Nuansiri says, are not so much related to developing the curriculum, but with winning acceptance from some parents.

“I get telephone calls from parents almost every day,” she recounts. “They complain their children are telling them that their courses are too difficult, the teachers assign them too much work or the teachers don’t give them enough information. Instead, they have the students begin by discussing the topic among themselves. They also complain about lack of textbooks. ‘And why do the students have to do so much research?’ they ask.”

Other problems are typical of top schools almost everywhere, Acharn Nuansiri says. With an average class size of 48, learner-centred activities are difficult to implement. The government’s budget allotment is also inadequate, necessitating considerable support from parents for purchasing items like computers.

A group of students talk with Acharn Sunee about their science project. In their quest for an environment-friendly dishwasher solution, they are experimenting by adding different local essences to a common chemical substance.

The science curriculum, says M1 science teacher Acharn Naowarat Ruengrueanbangchan, has some new elements, but it is by no means a complete overhaul of the old. The content is similar, but there are some distinct differences in methodology.

‘Chalk and talk’ has been reduced in favour of students seeking out information for themselves. “Nowadays, there are many more sources of information than before,” Acharn Naowarat explains.

The old curriculum included experimentation, she says, but the teacher would explain precisely what to do – how to draw up tables and record data. “Under the new systems students design their own tables and decide how to present the data derived from their experiments. They are also encouraged to consider how their findings might apply to every day life.”

As in the past, science and math teachers are fortunate to have lesson plans and activities supplied by the Institution for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPTST), Acharn Naowarat points out.

“This helps a lot,” she says. “At the moment, we are covering chemical substances and their properties. We have a selection of activities for each topic. The IPTST materials also include suggestions for additional areas of experimentation.”

For math teacher Acharn Ubon Rungrujee, one of the most significant changes brought about by the new curriculum is the process of continuous assessment.

“Instead of focusing on major tests, we now have smaller tests after the completion of each learning objective. We are testing much more regularly and collecting results continuously,” she explains.

“Students are much happier with this system. As soon as they finish a unit, they are tested on it. That way it is not so difficult and stressful for them,” Acharn Ubon observes.

“We also have regular worksheets for them. We have to prepare more, but we feel we are now able to evaluate their work more accurately than before,” she adds.

Because of the special nature of mathematics, there is less scope for learner-centred or self-discovery activities than in other subjects, Acharn Ubon says. But she does have her students do a wide variety of supplemental application activities which she herself has designed over the years.

In this social studies assignment, Acharn Suwaree Raoprjong started her class with a broad perspective before focusing on Thailand. The new curriculum allows curriculum writers to decide on the sequencing of learning.

Social studies, unlike mathematics, offers almost endless opportunities for student- led activities and M1 teacher Acharn Suwaree Raoprjong takes full advantage. In her first geography unit, for example, students are busy mapping the routes they take to and from school.

The lecture method has largely given way to group work with students working on a variety of assigned tasks. In the mapping unit, for example, one group might consider how maps are useful while another might focus on the elements of a map. They then report their findings in the form of a paper, demonstration, a classroom presentation or perhaps even a model.

Assessment takes place at the end of each unit. Students are tested on the material and they are also graded on the quality of their task work.

At this early stage of the reform process, resources are a bit of a problem, Acharn Suwaree says. “There are still no authorised textbooks, so everyday I bring in a bag of my own personal resources for the students plus material from our central social studies library.

“Judging from my four classes this term, I’m quite satisfied. Their ability to search out information is much better than before. They seem eager to do the tasks and their presentations have been quite acceptable,” she says.

“In the old system, the students were inactive. They spent their time listening to the teacher,” Acharn Suwaree observes.

Once again, social studies content has not changed significantly, but teachers have considerable leeway in how it is sequenced and taught. The second geography unit focuses on Thailand, for example, but Acharn Suwaree says they have decided to begin by giving the students a broader perspective.

“They should first have some understanding of global geography. How many continents are there? Which continent are we associated with? How many regions are there in Asia? What part of Asia are we associated with? Then they are ready to begin focusing on Thailand,” Acharn Suwaree explains.

According to M1 Thai teacher Acharn Sunan Tangkam, the new curriculum has brought about a change in the role of the teacher from that of a knowledge giver to one of a knowledge facilitator.

“We are focused much more on the learners and the importance of helping them to think for themselves, to be able to do things by themselves, to know how to research and to bring out their individual abilities to the fullest. We now need to plan activities that will give students the confidence they need to express themselves.”

Students, Acharn Sunan says, are increasingly being encouraged to produce their own materials such as PowerPoint presentations of summaries of things they have read. They are also putting together portfolios of their work.

“They are quite proud of what they are able to accomplish,” she says.

What will be the effect of the new curriculum in five or six years time? Acharn Nuansiri is quite hopeful that the changes will be for the better.

“I’m happy to see teachers training their students to be autonomous learners,” she says. “Teachers are no longer the centre of knowledge. Under the old system, students perhaps had more a solid foundation in the basic concepts of their subjects, but they were floundering when it came to autonomous learning.

“Students under the new system new system are more creative. If we are successful, I think in the not-too-distant future, we will have many more young business owners rather than just staff in companies,” Acharn Nuansiri says optimistically.

| Comments to Terry F. at terryfrd@ksc15.th.com |
|© The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd.
All rights reserved 2003 |
Last modified: August 4, 2003