ICT in the Thai classroom - London School of · PDF fileis the ‘One Laptop per Child’ (OLPC) scheme founded and championed by Nicholas Negroponte, with ‘OLPC’ schemes in....

Scholar Report - Michael Pearson 20th July 2015 - 12th September 2015

A scholarship awarded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Asia Research Centre and the Royal Thai Embassy in London

ICT in the Thai classroomAn assessment of teacher capabilities and attitudes towards the ‘One Tablet Per Child’ policy in Thailand

LSE Asia Research Centre (ARC) -

Thailand Government Scholarship 2015

Page 2 | ‘One Tablet Per Child’ LSE Asia Research Centre-Thailand Government Scholarship

Contents

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Background 5 ‘OLPC’ Literature 5 Thailand’s ‘OTPC’ scheme 6

Methodology 8 The ‘Capability Approach’ 8 The Study 9 Limitations 11

Findings 13 Project Rationales 13 Supply Side Issues 15 Integration into the Classroom 17 Accounting for Variation - Differences in Urban-Rural, Large-Small Schools and Teaching Experience 19 Urban-Rural Variation 20 Large-Small Variation 22 Below or above ‘mean’ experience 22 Interview data on variation 22 Evaluation 25 Acceptance 26

Recommendations 28

Conclusion 31

References 32

Appendices 35


Executive Summary

Thailand’s ‘One Tablet Per Child’ (OTPC) policy aimed to revolutionize learning by giving children the tools for self-learning, and thus allowing different students to work at different speeds according to their own capabilities. In doing so, OTPC would be key in bridging Thailand’s digital divide.

OTPC was cancelled in 2014 by the military government. This study examines how ICT education projects are implemented in Thailand through examining the role of the teacher.

The role of the teacher is crucial in understanding why ICT in education may not be consumed in the way intended by policymakers. Using a capabilities approach, this study examines if teachers a) had the capabilities to implement OTPC in the way intended, and b) actively chose to use the project in the way intended. Our recommendations and conclusions will therefore help to inform future ICT projects in the classroom in Thailand.

The study found that whilst teachers internalized the role of tablets as a catalyst for learning and improving e-literacy, few teachers internalized the self-learning purpose of tablets.

Surveys found that teachers were broadly positive of the project and its implementation. However, interviews found that teachers were generally quite negative.

A number of common themes recurred amongst teachers responses, relating to: procurement, a lack of adequate training relating to ICT and it’s relation to pedagogies, a lack of accounting for variation in student and teacher capabilities and attitudes, a lack of evaluation and low levels of acceptance from teachers.

What and Why?

,

Results

Recommendations

• Provide training on integrating ICT into teachers’ pedagogies, with additional training for teachers with lower ICT capabilities

• Ensure future procurement is transparent, does not compromise on quality of product and is not rushed

• Research and account for variations in student and teacher capabilities and attitudes, particularly rural-urban variations• Feedback mechanisms and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation should be introduced• Introduce awareness programmes and start a dialogue between teachers, policymakers and all stakeholders to reach common objectives and increase acceptance levels


Introduction

Thailand’s ‘One Tablet Per Child’ (OTPC) policy was one of the most eye-catching of Yingluck Shinawatra’s election pledges in the 2011 Thailand general election. The pledge promised tablets to students, starting at Prathom 1 (typically 7 year olds) and Matthayom 1 levels (typically 13 year olds). The aim of the scheme was to revolutionize learning in Thailand by aiding students in the process of self-learning, thus allowing student’s to learn at their own pace in accordance with their own capabilities. The scheme aimed to bridge the digital divide in Thailand by providing access to ICT to children from all provinces at an early age.

OTPC echoed the rationale of other education ICT projects in developing countries, namely the ‘One Laptop Per Child’ (OLPC) policy that champions a constructivist approach to education. However, many debates had already surrounded the OLPC policy in other countries. These debates ranged from whether the laptops increased educational attainment to whether spending money on laptops was the best use of public money and made sense in terms of countries’ resource allocation.

Whilst many studies quite rightly focus on how students interact and view such technologies, one needs to also consider teachers’ attitudes and capabilities. Teachers

are the gatekeepers to students using the tablets in the classroom and in a way that is productive to their education. Through assessing teachers’ attitudes and capabilities with regards integrating ICT into education, we can identify key obstacles in the system that prevent the technologies being used in the way intended, and thus prevent principal-agent issues.

This study attempts to evaluate teachers’ capabilities and attitudes to the OTPC scheme in Thailand. In doing so, we will be able to assess whether teachers implemented the scheme as intended by government. The government’s rationale for the project echoed the rationales behind the OLPC project in other

countries, namely bridging the digital divide, encourgaging self-learning and acting as a catalyst to education. We will aim to identify whether teachers were capable of using and integrating the ICT (both in terms of their own skills and the resources provided to them), or whether teachers chose not to use the project. Grounded in the capabilities’ approach, this study will evaluate this nexus between teachers, government and new ICT systems.


Background

‘OLPC’ Literature

The major comparative reference point for Thailand’s ‘One Tablet per Child’ project is the ‘One Laptop per Child’ (OLPC) scheme founded and championed by Nicholas Negroponte, with ‘OLPC’ schemes in countries such as Uruguay, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Peru. The primary rationale behind the OLPC, and OTPC scheme is a constructivist vision of education whereby teaching is radically transformed by allowing children to use technology to create their own internal models of viewing the world. Technology would facilitate this through allowing children to learn through “independent interaction and exploration”,1 but also collaboratively with their peers. This view of education led to debates as to whether children should be given laptops in a ‘parachute’ style manner, thus allowing children to be the drivers of their own education through their own exploration of educational content using technology; or whether such technology should be more deeply embedded in a country’s educational system whereby teachers would guide the students on the use of the technology.

Some studies attempt to measure the direct impact of OLPC schemes on educational outcomes. The IDB study of educational outcomes in Peru showed mixed results (Christia: 2012). On the one hand, no evidence was found of an impact on enrolment and Math and Language test scores. However, some positive effects were found on general cognitive skills, verbal fluency and coding skills. Whilst such studies provide an invaluable insight into the direct impact of such schemes, this is not our primary focus here for two primary reasons. Firstly, given this study was conducted ex-post both implementation and conclusion of the scheme, evaluation of outcomes is significantly harder to assess. Secondly, given the contextual environmental differences between countries, and differences between schemes themselves, such an approach may only highlight the virtues and vices of one particular scheme, and fail to tell us more broadly about how ICT use in educational settings is best facilitated.

There have been varying reports on the success of OLPC schemes. For example, Uruguay is often touted as an OLPC success story through bridging digital divides and inequalities in network access (Derndorfer: 2010). Conversely, others argue that OLPC schemes don’t take into account the economic cost of such projects leading to severe resource misallocation (James: 2010); and that OLPC schemes eschew implementation, monitoring and formal evaluation (Warschauer and Ames: 2010). Some have critiqued a technologically deterministic logic that is implied by OLPC schemes (Beitler: 2013; Winston: 2007; Kraemer et al.: 2009; Leaning: 2010). These authors argue that technology cannot be abstracted from the socio-cultural environment and educational systems it exists within.

This study will attempt to address some of these debates through understanding the role of the teacher in Thailand’s ‘OTPC’ policy’, thus echoing some studies that evaluate OLPC schemes based on how teachers use such technology (Fajebe: 2013;

1. One Laptop Per Child: Frequently Asked Questions. http://one.laptop.org/about/faq [Last accessed: 10th December 2015]


Apiola: 2011). This allows us to understand how teachers shape the educational environment and whether they use ICT in such a way as policymakers intended, and thus whether such projects are implemented in a way that reaps the apparent gains from ICT deployment in education.

Thailand’s ‘OTPC’ Scheme

Yingluck Shinawatra’s “Pheu Thai Party” (พรรคเพื ่อไทย) swept to victory in the Thailand general election of Summer 2011. Amongst her manifesto commitments was a pledge to give a tablet to every child in Thailand, starting at the Prathom 1 level. As The Economist (2012) writes, “Ms. Yingluck’s “one tablet per child” pledge during the campaign was probably her single most vote-catching policy”. The rationale behind the scheme can be noted in an interview with an advisor to the then Minister of ICT in 2013 (Futuregov: 2013). Echoing many OLPC schemes, Thailand’s OTPC scheme aimed to bridge the digital divide and inequities, encourage self-learning, and to provide an equal opportunity for students to access the same learning material, whilst allowing students to work through the content of the tablets at their own pace. (Kunakornpaiboonsiri: 2013).

Studies and reports into Thailand’s OTPC scheme highlight several issues. Firstly, the lack of adequate teacher training, as well as the lack of clear guidance in how to integrate the tablets into the current curriculum, has been noted. Van De Bogart (2012) noted the lack of digital literacy amongst teachers, and as a consequence, the lack of a ‘digital pedagogy’ that fully integrates ICT into teaching methods in Thailand. Viriyapong and Harfield (2013) also highlight the lack of digital capabilities amongst teachers, noting that many teachers use the tablets as substitutes for teaching (i.e. using for one period per day), instead of complementing their current teaching methods. Secondly, some authors note urban-rural differences in tablet use and/or capabilities. Pruet et al. (2014) noted an urban-rural divide in technology experience and anxiety of use in his study of Chiang Rai, although found no evidence of a male-female technology gap. Viriyapong and Harfield (2013) argue that tablets should take into account the variation in learning abilities across region and provide contextualized content, disputing the “one size fits all” approach. The Bangkok Post (2012) reports that an early study in 2012 into tablet use finds that ‘while more advanced content may suit students from city schools, it may be too hard for some rural students’.

Thirdly, problems regarding procurement, disorganized implementation, and product quality have been widely reported in Thai media and may have hit public confidence in the project. Various issues regarding procurement have been highlighted, including suspicions of vote rigging in bidding contests (Bangkok Post: 2013) and postponement or cancellation of delivery from suppliers (Tech in Asia: 2014; Bangkok Post: 2013; The Nation: 2012). Viryapong and Harfield (2013) note that “battery life, screen brightness and button defects have had a negative impact”, whilst Tech in Asia (2013) reported that the Office of the Auditor General said 30% of tablets distributed were reported as being broken or needing repair, although the Thai Ministry of ICT disputes this figure and argued this figure was 0.62% of tablets. Others question whether the scheme could be economically justified, particularly as Thailand’s education budget had already ballooned by doubling in a decade (The Economist: 2012). This


echoes concerns in the wider literature regarding the resource misallocation that occurs with OLPC schemes, as the technology is developed within richer countries, thus exhibiting their patterns of resource allocation, and not those of developing countries that have a higher opportunity cost in spending vast amounts of public money on such schemes (James: 2010). Administratively, Sambandaraksa (2012) argued that the project would “get lost in a whirlwind of politics and power play in fight for budget and media control” between the Education and ICT ministries due to nature of the project.

The ‘One Tablet per Child’ scheme was discontinued in the summer of 2014 after the military formed the National Council of Peace and Order (NCPO) to take power. The NCPO soon decided to implement the new “smart classrooms” policy whereby schools would switch from using tablets as an instrument throughout normal classroom study, to each school having one dedicated ‘smart’ classroom with ICT capabilities. In this way, it is “comparable to the computer lab of the past”, according to Anek Ratpiyapaporn of the Office of Basic Education Commission (Bangkok Post: 2014). According to press reports, the new scheme would take over some of the 5bn-6.5bn budget the OTPC scheme received. (Bangkok Post: 2014; The Nation: 2014).

Thus one may ask why study the OTPC as the scheme has been discontinued. The purpose of this report is to assess the success of the scheme, and how it was implemented in Thailand. The diffuculties highlighted above are of relevance to our study. If teachers were not able to use the tablets as intended, due to problems regarding implementation or product quality, then we are focusing on a different issue than if teachers didn’t have adequate ICT capabilities or a pedagogy that integrates ICT use. This study will attempt to disentangle these issues. Through doing this, we will be able to propose recommendations for ICT projects in the classroom in Thailand in the future, most notably the Smart Classroom scheme. This ex-post study will assess the capabilities of teachers in implementing ICT projects in Thailand, and investigate any weak points in the education system. This will help us to learn the lessons of the OTPC scheme and ensure that future projects don’t repeat the same mistakes again.


Methodology

The ‘Capability Approach’

This report will adopt the ‘capability approach’ framework and use it for evaluating the capabilities of teachers with regards to the OTPC project. The ‘capability approach’, advocated by Amartya Sen, focuses on both an individual’s functionings (the “beings and doings of a person”), and their capabilities (the “various combinations of functionings that a person can achieve”). The capabilities approach has been adopted in the education literature to argue for the expansion of a child’s educational capabilities (Unterhalter: 2007; Robeyns: 2006), thus, giving them greater freedom “to lead the kind of lives they value – and have reason to value” (Sen: 1999). Zheng (2009) synthesizes the capability approach by noting “the extent to which people can generate capabilities from goods and services is influenced by three sets of conversion factors – personal, social, and environmental characteristics”. The below schema (Figure 1), from Zheng (2009), presents a way of conceptualizing Sen’s capabilities approach. Using Sen’s capabilities approach allows us to focus on the unit of analysis at which the tablets are supposed to operate, the individual, whilst also taking into account broader contextual factors through examining “conversion factors”.

Figure 1: Zheng’s schema of the core aspects of the capabilities approach

However, the focus in this study is on whether teachers possess a set of capabilities that allows them to use ICTs in a way that improves the environment for children to enhance their own capabilities. Thus, teachers’ functionings (what they actually do) translate to providing the environmental conversion factors for students to allow them to convert the tablet into a capability set. (See figure 2). This focus has numerous advantages. Firstly, it allows us to focus on the underappreciated actor of the teacher in the context of OTPC (or OLPC) projects. This allows us to ask whether teachers’ capabilities (i.e. the vectors of potential functionings in the classroom) are limited to begin with, i.e. don’t have much freedom to ‘achieve’ in using the tablets in the classroom due to not knowing how to use the tablets in the first place; or whether teachers are choosing to (not) use the tablets based on personal preferences (i.e. style of teaching). Secondly, in choosing the individual teacher as the unit level of analysis, this allows us to hone in on the individual who in many cases is the ‘gatekeeper’ to the diffusion of new technologies which their students must then engage with. How teachers viewed the tablets is, in many ways, as important as how the students view the

Vector of Commodities

(Characteristics)

Means to achieve

Capabilities =

Vectors of potential

Functionings

Freedom to achieve

One vector of achieved

functionings

Achievement

Personal, social and environmentalcharacteristics

Personal pressure, social preference and other decision-making

mechanisms

From Zheng, Y. 2009. Different spaces for e-development: What can we learn from the capability approach? Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15(2), pp.66-82.


tablets. Thirdly, as noted by Unterhalter (2007), the capabilities approach allows us to also focus on “how social context sets the conditions for individual freedoms”. By joining the teacher’s capability schematic with the student’s capability schematic, we focus on both the individual and the social context by examining how the individual, the teacher, shapes this context for the student.

Figure 2: Teachers’ capabalities and functionings translate into the conversion factorsthat allow students to use technology to learn

As noted in the education literature, “teachers pedagogues and pedagogical reasoning influence their use of ICT and thereby their pupil’s attainment” (Cox and Abott: 2004), and that their “own pedagogical beliefs and values play an important part in shaping technology-mediated opportunities”. Cot et al. (2003) also noted that teachers’ pedagogies affect everything from preparation of lessons to the way in which an ICT resource is used. Using the capability approach allows us to integrate teachers’ pedagogies into our assessment of the OTPC scheme and ask how ICT fits into their pre-existing pedagogies, and how if at all, this has impacted on their ‘functionings’, i.e. how they use the tablets.

The Study

This study was conducted in the southern Thai province of Nakhon Si Thammarat in August and September of 2015. Interviews were conducted and questionnaire responses were collected by myself from 10 schools between 1st September 2015 and 15th September 2015. 43 questionnaires were conducted at all 10 schools visited and were translated into Thai for ease of data collection (see Appendices A and B for English and Thai versions respectively). Semi-structured interviews were conducted at 9 schools and covered a wide range of topics, although it should be said that the smaller schools afforded more time and provided more in-depth data.


(Characteristics)

Means to achieve

Capabilities =


Functionings

Freedom to achieve


functionings

Achievement


Personal pressure, social preference and other

decision-making mechanisms


(Characteristics)

Means to achieve

Capabilities =


Functionings

Freedom to achieve


functionings

Achievement


Personal pressure, social preference and other decision-making

mechanisms

Teachers’ capabilities schema

Students’ capabilities schema

Adapted from Zheng, Y. 2009.


The profile of the schools surveyed in the sample is as follows. 10 schools were visited in total2. Of these, 8 schools were located in a rural area and 2 schools were located in an urban area, representing 56% and 44% of our questionnaire sample respectively. All schools were ‘public’ or government schools, as opposed to private or international schools. 3 schools of the 10 were large schools (accounting for 63% of questionnaire responses); the other 7 were small schools (accounting for 37% of questionnaire responses). Primary schools accounted for 7 out of 10 schools, whilst secondary schools accounted for 3 out of 10 schools (representing 67% and 37% of our questionnaire responses). Only one school (a large rural secondary) in our survey chose not to be interviewed, however they were happy to respond to the questionnaire. Table 3 gives a full breakdown by school of their profile (names of schools are omitted as anonymity was an important pre-condition to many schools taking part in our survey):

Table 3: Breakdown of profile of schools by size, population density, and education level

School % of survey responses Small or Large Rural or Urban Primary or Secondary

1 35% Urban Large Small

2 5% Rural Small Primary


4 9% Urban Large Small





9 19% Rural Large Small


In terms of survey design, one question asked what teachers believed the main purpose of the tablets was, with the multiple choices echoing Hawkridge’s (1990) rationales for ICT deployment in education (Question 8: see Appendices A & B). These include a social rationale (exposing children to new technologies and bridging digital divides), a vocational rationale (developing skills for a technologically competent workforce), a cost-effectiveness rationale (replacing ‘costly’ teachers) and a pedagogical rationale (enabling children to learn better through computer-assisted learning. This allows us to assess whether the government’s vision of the project matched up with how teachers viewed the project. A further 11 statements were presented to survey respondents who responded on a standard five-point likert-scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The following statements attempted to assess whether teachers had the capabilities to use the tablets effectively, or simply chose not to use them:

2. The classifcation of “large vs. small” in this study is based on the relative size of schools in our sample. The “small schools” in our sample did not have over 200 pupils and were all based in rural areas, reflecting the population density of the local area. The “large schools” were primarily based in urban areas and had a minimum of 800 pupils. The classification of “urban” schools is based on whether the school was based in or around the “city” (mueang) of Nakhon Si Thammarat, and thus served the urban population; whilst rural schools were not based in the city of Nakhon Si Thammarat but in the wider province of Nakhon Si Thammarat in areas of low population density.


• I have good ICT skills• I felt confident using the tablets when teaching• I used the tablets often when teaching• Adequate guidance was provided by the school to train me how to use the tablets and integrate them into the classroom• I knew how to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum well• The school helped maintain and update the tablets when needed• The software and teaching content provided on the laptops worked well within the current curriculum• The dynamic between student and teacher changed due to the introduction of tablets• The tablets transformed the way I teach my students• ICT is very important to how I teach• The tablets improved the grades of students

A comment box also allowed teachers to give feedback on the project.

Limitations

First and foremost, our sample size was relatively small, surveying 10 schools and 43 different teachers. We should take this into account when considering our results and note that further research may be needed to confirm the results that are found. Secondly, although only 2 schools in an urban environment were visited, compared to 8 in a rural area, this was due to the high volume of responses in a large urban school, compared to the very small number of responses per school in a small rural school. Whilst our data is fairly split between urban and rural (55% to 45%) and large and small schools (63% to 37%), it should be noted that the individual experience of only 2 schools with the OTPC project accounts for a large proportion of the large school population and the entirety of the urban school population in our dataset. Thus we should be cautious when drawing conclusions regarding the external validity of the experiences of these schools.

Furthermore, as will be noted in the results section, there was a significant difference between what teachers reported on surveys and what they reported in interviews regarding satisfaction with the project. Although it was hoped that both qualitative and quantitative data would broadly support each other, this was not the case, and therefore, we should take this into account when noting our results and drawing conclusions from them.

The discrepancies between quantitative data and qualitative data may be explained by several limitations in using self-reported data in our questionnaires. The validity of self-reported data may be subject to social desirability bias, in other words respondents may respond positively so as to not admit their own weaknesses regarding ICT usage, or to appear helpful to the interviewer. Whilst this study attempted to negate this bias to a degree by guaranteeing anonymity for respondents, it may well be the case there is an element of social desirability bias and this should be taken into account. Furthermore, self-assessment of a respondent’s own skills and competence will


be judged within the social context in which they find themselves. Thus, such measures may only be relative to social context. For example, whilst a teacher in an urban school may report having mediocre skills given the relative technological competence of the urban community, a teacher in a rural school may report having good ICT skills due to the relative scarcity of technology in a rural area compared to an urban area, and thus, measure their own competence on a different basis than a different respondent. Thus, when we analyse our results, we should take into account the relative nature of some of the questions asked.

Lastly, of all schools that could be found to have had tablets delivered to them, none responded to any inquiries by e-mail. All schools that participated were found through telephone inquiries and all schools contacted through this method were happy to take part. However, many contacts were gathered from asking a previous school to recommend other schools where tablets had been used. Thus, whilst all teachers found by inquiries offline were willing to take part in our study, we did also have a 0% online response rate. This perhaps highlighted the difficulty in establishing trust with teachers and schools, some of whom were wary of an external party surveying the OTPC policy at their school. However, when recommended by another teacher at another school, teachers were willing to take part in the study.


Findings

The following section surmises the results of our survey. Both quantitative data gathered from questionnaires is presented, as well as qualitative data gathered from the interviews conducted, comments collected in the comment box at the end of each questionnaire, and from any other data gathered through e-mail or telephone correspondence. A number of recurring themes are outlined below, which will also tie in the quantitative data outlined above. The subsequent section will provide a number of conclusions and recommendations. However, let us firstly evaluate whether the key rationales for the OTPC project have been internalized by the teachers surveyed.

Project Rationales

Firstly, let us examine the views of teachers with regards to the rationale behind the project. As noted previously, these rationales reflect Hawkridge’s rationales and provide a comprehensive selection of possible reasons for ICT deployment in education.

As no interviews could be secured with anyone from any ministry or any government authority, we will use the aforementioned interview with an Advisor to the ICT Minister in Thailand in 2013 to ‘FutureGov’ as the reference point for the government’s main rationale behind the project. Rationales noted in the interview are a) bridging the digital divide b) encouraging self-learning c) helping some children to learn quicker by allowing students to work through content in accordance with their capabilities (Futuregov: 2013)

On the one hand, it is clear that the government’s rationale of bridging the digital divide had been significantly realized by teachers, as 66% noted e-literacy as being a primary aim (in the top 3 responses). It is also clear that teachers realized the government’s aim of tablets acting as a catalyst for learning, with 68% noting this rationale. However, the notion of self-learning scored 5th out of 6th in our survey with only 32% considering this as in the top 3 rationales for the project (See Table 4). Furthermore, teachers consider the vocational rationale highly (53%), yet this is not mentioned in the interview.

Table 4: Teachers’ views of the most 3 important rationales of the OTPC project

Rationale Percentage

To help children through the use of technology. Grades will therefore improve. 68%

To help children know how to use computers and technology, and hence, become e-literate 66%

To help children know how to use computers for future careers (not necessarily in the IT sector) 53%

To help teachers as a tool to organize their teaching 34%

To help children have more control over their learning and rely on the teacher for guidance 32%

To reduce the costs of teaching, as other teaching materials are not needed 24%

We should be extremely cautious regarding drawing the main rationales behind the


project from the government’s point of view from one interview. However, what is clear is that self-learning is an important rationale for the OTPC project, and OLPC projects elsewhere in the world. This is due to the constructivist educational logic that such projects attempt to embolden. Whilst some of the government’s rationales had been realized by teachers, there exists a worrying disconnect between government and teachers in terms of ‘self-learning’.

In order to assess the perception that teachers have of their own ICT capabilities, teachers were asked to self-assess their own ICT skills and locate them on a five-point likert scale. Table 5 illustrates that the median response in our survey was that teachers ‘Agree’ that they have good ICT skills, with 61% of teachers selecting this option

Table 5: Median response on likert-scale to statement posed to teachers regarding their own ICT skills

Statement Median Response

Percentage of Teachers choosing Median

Response

I have good ICT skills Agree 61%

However, as noted previously, there is a weakness in the self-assessment of one’s own capabilities. Firstly, as is often the case with self-assessment surveys, there may be a social desirability bias from teachers, in other words, they may exaggerate their own skills due to embarassment in admitting to not having good skills. Secondly, whilst teachers may perceive their own ICT skills to be good, their perception of their own skills may be relative to the context in which they find themselves in. For example, a teacher in a rural area may self-assess themselves as having ‘good ICT skills’ as their primary reference point is a community with limited ICT diffusion and few ICT skills, so comparatively they may have ‘good’ skills. Thus, every individual’s perception of ‘good skills’ cannot be separated from their own environment. This point will be further elaborated later. Thus, although this appears to be a positive result at first glance, without a comprehensive non-self-assessed evaluation of capabilities, we should be cautious as to the reliability of the above figure, particularly given the issues that are outlined below.

We will now address the key issues found in the implementation of the OTPC scheme, and subsequently provide a number of conclusions and recommendations.


Supply Side Issues

Perhaps the most evident issue with OTPC was the poor quality of the tablets that were provided. This was one of the most common concerns raised by teachers. Many other teachers noted the speed at which devices operated and poor battery life. As one teacher said,

“The program cannot meet the learning objectives of the students as the device is really slow and the battery runs out so fast”

Others noted how there was only one company, “AdviceService”, that repaired the tablets, and repair of the tablets was expensive and could take months. Some teachers lamented the lack of budget for repairing the tablets, and some had given up on repairing and using the tablets due to the long waiting times and budgetary constraints in repairing the tablets. One school even had 100% of the 30 tablets broken that were handed out to Prathom 1 students. This was the most obvious supply side issue that prevented teachers from having the capability to use the tablets in their teaching.

Another major supply side issue came further down the implementation chain at the province level. The timing of delivery, and to what grade, was a major issue for many schools. One teacher noted the poor timing in the handout of tablets:

“The local authority decides what grade to give [the tablet] to. We had to give them to Matthayom 2, but then they graduated to M3 very soon after, and all the content is out of date for them. This is because there was no content on the tablets for Matthayom 3 curriculum. There was inconsistent delivery according to the content”

Other schools noted the slow delivery of tablets and that they were not always delivered when promised.

Other comments related to the inconsistent content provided on the tablets. Some teachers noted that the English language content was quite good, though the content was not as good for Thai language. Some teachers pointed out that there wasn’t any content for Matthayom 3 students, so students used the subject matter for Matthayom 2 students instead.

These results contradict our survey data that shows that teachers, on average, teachers thought that the schools helped to maintain and update the tablets. Table 6 shows that teachers on average agreed with statements regarding the satisfactory maintanence, software and content of tablet.


Table 6: Median response on likert-scale to statements posed to teachers regarding supply side issues



Response

The school helped maintain and update the tablets when needed Agree 42%

The software and teaching content provided on the tablets worked well within the current curriculum Agree 44%

The results outlined above present a mixed picture regarding supply side issues relating to OTPC. Whilst it may well be the case that on average teachers felt that the tablets were maintained, updated, and contained adequate software and teaching content, our interviews and participant observation indicate that there is at least a large vocal minority of teachers who are largely dissatisfied with the tablets content, distribution and maintanence. Whilst we have mixed results, it is clear that problems in delivery of the tablets and their quality both contributed to some teachers not having the capabilities to use the tablets effectively when teaching, due to no fault of their own.


Integration into the Classroom

Another common theme was the inability of teachers to integrate the tablets into their existing pedagogies. On the one hand, the majority of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that adequate guidance was given on how to use and integrate the tablets into the classroom (61%), and the majority of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they knew how to integrate the tablets into the curriculum well (62%) (See Table 7). Whilst these results are positive, two recurring obstacles to classroom integration were found in the qualitative data: teachers’ inability to control students, and a lack of training and knowledge on using the tablets in the classroom.

Table 7: Median response on likert-scale to statements posed to teachers regarding integration into the

classroom issues



Response

Adequate guidance was provided by the school to train me how to use the tablets and integrate them into the classroom Agree 40%

I knew how to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum well Agree 42%

The dynamic between student and teacher changed due to the introduction of tablets Agree 51%

Many teachers noted concerns they had regarding teaching with the tablets due to the effect this would have on the students’ behaviour. As some teachers said,

“The biggest problem we have is on how to guide the students and advise them [on how to use the tablets].”

“Sometimes the students can go on other websites and we cannot block it. The tablets can help if we can control the children. Teachers who know computers can control them, but those who didn’t know, can’t control them.

“Thai students sometimes are very hard to control and if we can control them it can be good. We have to spend a lot of time telling the students why it’s useful but they have to understand.”

Another teacher noted how it was difficult to control the students as they didn’t give the tablets to teachers, thus, “how can I teach if I can’t see what’s going on”. Conversely, some teachers use the tablets as a positive way to engage the students if they are bored. “If a group of students gets bored, I give them the tablet to make them excited again. It’s the same content as the book”. Our quantitative data also reflects this changing dynamic. As Table 5 shows, the majority of teachers believed that the dynamic


between student and teacher changed due to the introduction of tablets (51%). This provides further credence to the idea that the tablets had a disruptive influence in the classroom, and thus, led to an inability to control their students.

Another major problem with regards to integrating the tablets was to do with a lack of training and guidance on how teachers should integrate the tablets into their teaching methods. One teacher noted that,

“3 teachers got training at a conference, but there was no supervision with the tablets and not all teachers went on the training course, and no person came into the school to train teachers”

Whilst another teacher said that whilst the apps were okay,

“There was no guidance on how to integrate them into our learning and curriculum. The methods weren’t there.”

The consequence of these two major obstacles, i.e. lack of knowledge on how to control students given the introduction of the tablets and the lack of appropriate training or guidance for teachers, was the inappropriate use of tablets. A common comment from teachers would be that students would use it “like a toy” and would use tablets to play games and hence, ignore studying. Others noted that students’ interest in the tablets decreased over time.

Whilst these results contradict our survey results, which indicate teachers were confident in using ICT, and had good ICT capabilities, we should be wary given the limitations of self-reported data. Furthermore, the median score on the changing ‘teacher-student’ dynamic statement was neither agree nor disagree, which more closely aligns with our qualitative data. However, our qualitative data indicated that the lack of capabilities that teachers possessed, which may have been enhanced through training and proper guidance on how to manage the introduction of ICT into the classroom and its consequences regarding behaviour, was a large factor in the lack of acceptance of the project from the teachers’ point of view.


Accounting for Variation - Differences in Urban-Rural, Large-Small Schools and Teaching Experience

To discover if there were any significant differences in responses based on where teachers taught or their experience, Mann-Whitney U Tests were carried out. Schools were classified as rural or urban (based on location), large or small (based on school population). Schools in our study tended to have a size of either up to 250 pupils or from 800 up to 5000. Thus, there was a natural separation in our data as to what could be classified as large or small. The same can be said of the rural-urban classification given to schools in this study, as all ‘urban’ schools were located in the city of Nakhon Si Thammarat, and all rural schools were located in areas of very low population density. We also examined whether there were any variations in survey response based on whether teachers were below or above the mean reported experience (23.6 years), and the mean reported age (55), as well as whether the school was primary or secondary. Although such a method is not completely rigorous, it allows us to examine attitudes of teachers based on experience and age.

Table 8 shows which statements have a statistically significant variation in the distributions of responses between the two-subset populations.

Table 8: Variations in attitudes and capabilities towards OTPC based on binary variables

Statement Urban vs. Rural

Large vs. Small

Below or above Mean Experience (23.6 years)

Primary vs. Secondary

Below or above Mean Age (55 years)

I have good ICT skills 0.086* NS NS NS NS

I felt confident using the tablets when teaching NS NS NS NS NS

I used the tablets often when teaching 0.073* NS NS NS NS

Adequate guidance was provided by the school to train me how to use the tablets

and integrate them into the classroomNS NS NS NS NS

I knew how to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum well 0.077* NS NS NS NS

The school helped maintain and update the tablets when needed NS NS NS NS NS

The software and teaching content provided on the laptops worked well

within the current curriculum0.022** NS NS NS NS

The dynamic between student and teacher changed due to the introduction

of tablets0.003*** 0.049* NS NS NS

The tablets transformed the way I teach my students NS NS 0.016** NS NS

ICT is very important to how I teach NS NS NS NS NS

The tablets improved the grades of students NS NS NS NS NS

Key: Indication of statistical significance: *** > 99%, ** > 95%, * > 90% NS = Not statistically significant


Urban-Rural Variation

As can be seen in Figures 9 and 10, urban vs. rural divides in terms of self-reported ICT skills and frequency of use are clear in the distribution of responses. In both cases, teachers in rural areas report a higher value of ICT capability and that they use the tablets more than their urban counterparts.

Figure 9: Distribution of self-reported ICT skills amongst teachers in rural and urban areas (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

Figure 10: Distribution of self-reported frequency of tablet usage amongst teachers in rural and urban areas (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

As can be seen in Figures 11 and 12, urban vs. rural divides are apparent in how teachers view whether the software on the tablets worked well within the current curriculum, and whether they felt as though they knew how to integrate the tablets into their lessons. In terms of both statements, rural teachers were more positive than their urban counterparts. In this sense, we can note that teachers in rural areas appear to value the tablets more than urban teachers, and have a higher capability in usage and a higher usage in lessons. This may reflect greater usage of tablets in rural areas.

The other statistically significant urban-rural divide in the data appears when testing the statement “the dynamic between student and teacher changed due to the introduction of tablets”. As can be seen in Figure 13, teachers in rural areas agreed more with this statement than teachers in urban areas. This may reflect the greater usage in rural areas, but as we will see, also reflects issues regarding the disruption that the

Rural Urban

Frequency Frequency

I use

d th

e ta

blet

s of

ten

whe

n te

achi

ng

54321

I used the tablets often w

hen teaching

54321

15 10 5 0 5 10 15

Rural Urban

Frequency Frequency

I hav

e go

od IC

T sk

ills 5

4321

I have good ICT skills

54321

15 10 5 0 5 10 15


tablets brought to teachers’ existing pedagogies.

Figure 11: Distribution of whether rural and urban teachers felt as if content provided on the tablets worked within the curriculum

Figure 12: Distribution of whether rural and urban teachers felt as if they knewhow to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum well

Figure 13: Distribution of rural and urban teachers’ views on whether the dynamic between student and teacher changed due to the introduction of the tablet

Rural Urban

Frequency FrequencyThe

dyna

mic

bet

wee

n st

uden

t and

te

ache

r cha

nged

due

to th

e

intr

oduc

tion

of th

e ta

blet 5

4321

The dynamic betw

een student and teacher changed due to the introduction of the tablet

54321

20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20

Rural Urban

Frequency FrequencyI kne

w h

ow to

inte

grat

e th

e ta

blet

s in

to th

e ex

istin

g cu

rric

ulum 5

4321

I knew how

to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum

54321

12 8 4 0 4 8 12

Rural Urban


soft

war

e an

d te

achi

ng c

onte

nt

prov

ided

on

the

tabl

ets

wor

ked

wel

l w

ithin

the

curr

ent c

irruc

ulum 5

4321

The software and teaching content

provided on the tablets worked w

ell w

ithin the current cirruculum

54321

15 10 5 0 5 10 15


Large-Small School Variation

As can be seen from Table 8, the only statistically significant variation between small and large schools in terms of distribution of responses was on the student-teacher dynamic. Figure 14 shows that a much higher proportion of teachers in smaller schools were likely to report that the student-teacher dynamic had changed due to the introduction of tablets. As will be noted in the following section, this may be due to several reasons, namely a greater frequency of use in rural schools, and a difference in the capabilities of children.

Figure 14: Distribution of teachers’ views in small and large schools on whether they felt as if they knew how to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum

Below or above ‘mean’experience (23.6 years)

Figure 15 shows the only statistically significant variation in distribution of responses for the statements above in terms of teacher experience, namely whether the tablets transformed the way in which teachers teach their students.

Figure 15: Distribution of whether teachers, with above or below mean experience in our sample, felt as if the tablets transformed the way they teach

Somewhat surprisingly, the distribution amongst teachers with above the mean experience, 23.6 years, was skewed more towards the agreement end of the scale, i.e. that the tablets did change teaching methods; and the distribution amongst teachers

Below Mean Experience (23.55 years old) Above Mean Experience (23.55 years old)


tabl

ets

tran

sfor

med

the

way

I te

ach

54321

The tablets transformed the

way I teach

54321

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Large Small

Frequency FrequencyI kne

w h

ow to

inte

grat

e th

e ta

blet

s in

to th

e ex

istin

g cu

rric

ulum 5

4321

I knew how

to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum

54321

12 8 4 0 4 8 12


below the mean experience was skewed towards the disagreement end of the scale, i.e. the tablets didn’t change teaching methods. Whilst one may have thought that more experienced teachers would be less open to new methods, the opposite was found to be the case. Although we do not attempt to posit an explanation, this should be further looked at regarding acceptance of new ICT methods in education in the future.

No significant variation in distribution of responses could be found to any of the statements above when examining whether a school was primary or secondary, or whether teachers were above or below the mean age of 55 (the mean age in our sample)

Interview data on variations

As seen from our survey data, the major variation in attitudes towards the project was apparent on the rural-urban dimension, thus reflecting the digital divide. Our qualitative data also supports this hypothesis. Some teachers highlighted how the tablets would be of greater benefit in urban areas, due to the greater capability of students in urban areas:

“We have to spend a lot of time telling the students why it’s useful but they have to understand. It may be useful in urban areas but not in rural areas because they don’t understand why it’s useful”

“In town it’s different. They have nursery schools and start earlier, here they learn slower and so the town will be better for tablets”

Some teachers believed that inequities in student capabilities operated on a regional level:

“Here in the south I wouldn’t give any students a tablet because they’d get distracted, especially with smartphones at the moment. It gives students more excuses like ‘the Wi-Fi isn’t working’”

Other teachers appear to believe that it is a more countrywide problem with regards to students’ capabilities,

“Children in Thailand are not ready to use it, Singapore and Malaysia are different. Some children here can’t even write their name, let alone use the tablet”

As illustrated in both quantitative and qualitative data, there appears to be a difference in how teachers and schools utilise tablets and a difference in attitudes towards them in rural and urban areas. Urban schools appear to be ambivalent with the project, with many teachers not knowing anything about the project. As some teachers noted,


“One day I came into school and all the Matthayom 2 and Matthayom 3 students had tablets. The school didn’t tell us about it. They didn’t bring the tablets into school after that”

“The students took them home and, again to the best of my knowledge, never actually used them in school. Most were afraid of them being lost or broken”

Thus, there appears to be a stark rural-urban contrast in attitudes towards the OTPC project, and also in how it was used. Urban teachers appeared to be more apathetic and placed less value on the project, with schools generally implementing the ‘parachute’ approach to the distribution of the tablets, and a lack of engagement with the tablets. Rural teachers appeared to be more willing to engage with the project (as shown in the surveys), but also appear to be most frustrated with the project at how it does not account for the level of student capabilities found in rural areas.

In terms of other variation in attitudes and use of the tablets; age, experience and school level (primary or secondary) did not appear to have an impact. Conversely, many Prathom (primary) teachers voiced concerns that the tablets were ineffective, as they had been introduced to students who were too young. The only other variation found in the data was the difference between teachers in large and small schools, and their opinion on the difference on the changing student-teacher dynamic. Whilst we cannot confer a definite explanation on why this is the case, one can note that many of the smaller schools surveyed were also rural schools, and thus, may have had a greater frequency of usage of tablets compared to urban schools. Furthermore, as the smaller schools were found in rural areas, we may conjecture that the lack of ICT capabilities of rural students due to a lack of ICT exposure also led to a more disruptive effect of the introduction of ICT, as opposed to urban students who may be more likely to be used to ICT on a day-to-day basis. However, both of these explanations are merely conjecture.


Evaluation

One worrying concern was highlighted by many teachers and schools that were visited, namely that there had been a lack of evaluation of the project by provincial or national educational authorities. Some teachers complained that:

“The government didn’t talk with teachers. No one has ever come to look at how the OTPC project is going here. It’s also difficult for us to contact them (educational authorities)”

“The government has never come to do an evaluation to see if this project is possible in terms of the technology at the school, things like electricity and Wi-Fi. It’s: give the tablets first, then the broadband after”

“The schools are not ready to apply the tablets with teaching yet as there is no Internet connection in some areas.”

Another teacher noted that a scepticism at the intentions of the educational authorities, believing that

“The officials come here just to take photos and say the project works”

The lack of evaluation and appropriate feedback mechanisms for teachers hinders the project in a number of ways. Most obviously, many of the points raised in this study so far, (i.e. the lack of teacher capabilities, variations in student capabilities, supply side issues), will fail to be properly taken into account by the authorities, and thus, such problems will not have been sufficiently addressed. However, as we will note in the next section, the lack of evaluation and channels of dialogue between government and teachers can lead to a generally low-level of acceptance of the project in schools.


Acceptance

Finally, the last common theme found during our study was that of the lack of acceptance of the project by teachers. It should be noted that teachers self-reported that they felt confident using the tablets, used the tablets often when teaching and found ICT to be important to how they teach (the percentage of teachers selecting agree or strongly agree to these statements equalling 61%, 58% and 55% respectively). However, these statements may be sas can be seen from Table 16, the median responses when posed with the statements, “The tablets transformed the way I teach my students”, and “The tablets improved the grades of students” was neither agree nor disagree.

Table 16: Median response on likert-scale to statements posed to teachers regarding the acceptance of

tablets in the classroom



Response

I felt confident using the tablets when teaching Agree 47%

I used the tablets often when teaching Agree 47%

The tablets transformed the way I teach my students Neither agree nor disagree 21%

ICT is very important to how I teach Agree 40%

The tablets improved the grades of students Neither agree nor disagree 23%

Furthermore, our qualitative data also suggests a hesitancy on the part of some teachers in using the tablets when teaching. As one teacher put it,

“Teachers felt forced to accept it. Parents said they didn’t need it. The majority of teachers don’t like it”

The lack of dialogue with teachers has led to some feeling of it as an imposition, and not a partnership between government and teachers. As seen here, many of the previously noted problems (e.g. lack of feedback mechanisms, lack of capabilities of students and teachers etc.) manifest in a lack of acceptance of the project. Furthermore, many teachers were sceptical of the project due to perceived problems with corruption in government:

“There was corruption at every level. At the ministry, at the local office, and then at the school, everyone would take a 30% cut from the project at every level”

One possible reason for the lack of general acceptance in our area of study, Nakhon Si Thammarat – a province in the south of Thailand, may have been that it was Yingluck Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai Party that introduced the policy – which failed to win a seat in


the province in their 2011 election win. Thus, as one or teachers made clear, they were suspicious of the policy from its inception.

Furthermore, there were issues of technology acceptance aside from the political concerns outlined above. Many teachers noted their instinctive preference for pens, paper, and books due to the problems that come with digital technology. Some noted that many parents didn’t see the need for tablets. As a consequence, teachers only used the tablet occasionally.

As we will now outline, these five common themes need to be addressed concurrently for any future projects to succeed.


Recommendations

All of the recommendations to be made focus on a) giving teachers the capabilities to integrate ICT into their teaching, and b) encouraging greater acceptance of ICT projects in education. Thus, our recommendations are grounded in the capability approach and focusing on the weak points in the teacher’s capability schema. Given the cancellation of the OTPC scheme, the following recommendations are given with a view to the ‘Smart Classroom’ policy initiated by the NCPO and any future ICT projects in education in Thailand.

Ensure future ICT procurement in education is conducted transparently, is not rushedand does not compromise on quality of product.

Whilst the constraints of electoral politics may have led to the OTPC scheme being somewhat rushed, future administrations may wish to implement schemes at a slightly slower pace. Trading-off time for quality will serve to provide a better quality of product, increase confidence in the project amongst teachers. This may only work if government is transparent with teachers regarding realistic delivery dates. Transparency regarding procurement will also serve to increase acceptance of the project amongst teachers suspicious of corruption. A more transparent, slower, but better quality product may increase not only the ability of teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching, but increase the frequency of use through greater acceptance amongst teachers.

Provide training on integrating ICT into teachers existing pedagogies, with additional training for teachers with lower ICT capabilities and more traditional pedagogies

Future implementation of ICT projects in education need to take into account that not all teachers have the same capabilities regarding ICT. A focus on equalizing capabilities amongst teachers, instead of focusing on ‘ICT-literate’ teachers as the forbearers of the project, will lead to greater capabilities amongst all teachers, and empower teachers to choose to use new methods in their teaching. Fundamental to this recommendation is not to view such a project as an, ‘ICT project’, but an ‘education project’. Doing so will afford greater attention to the wider implications of attempting to integrate ICT use in education. A vital concern is the unintended consequences on student behaviour and the teacher-student dynamic. As many teachers noted, not knowing how to control students after the introduction of ICT is fundamental to teachers not being able to use the tablets in the intended way. Training should focus not only on how to use the ICT, but also how to integrate it into teachers’ existing pedagogies. Doing so will help teachers to fully realize and introduce the currently undervalued ‘self-learning’ aspect of such technologies into their teaching.


Research and account for variations in student and teacher capabilities and attitudes,particularly rural-urban variations

Rural-urban divides, and small-large school divides need to be fully understood before implementation, or at the least be evaluated on an ongoing basis during implementation. Whilst the exact nature of such divides is still unclear, what is clear that such variations in attitudes and capabilities do exist. Rural teachers appear to be more receptive to the project, but lament the lack of consultation and wider concerns regarding infrastructure and training, whilst urban teachers appear to more apathetic to the project. Teachers note the difference in student capabilities in rural and urban areas, and some suggest giving rural students ICT at a later age in order to develop other capabilities first. Such differences need to be researched and accounted for.

Feedback mechanisms and comprehensive project evaluation should be introduced

As noted, many schools did not have the chance to give feedback on the project. Mechanisms that ensure that teachers can feedback to local and national educational authorities should be set up, thus ensuring that many of the concerns raised above are recognized and taken into account to improve the project. Regular evaluation and studies of projects should also be undertaken. Evaluation should also be undertaken at the level of regional educational offices in order to appreciate the regional educational context and the capabilities and attitudes of those in the region.

Introduce awareness programmes and start a genuine dialogue between teachers, parents, schools and government to reach common objectives and increaseacceptance levels

All of the recommendations above will serve to increase acceptance of the project through increasing teachers’ capabilities and ability to implement the project as intended. However, teachers must make the conscious decision to implement the project, thus increasing acceptance is a crucial part of ensuring future projects work. Starting a dialogue with teachers and parents ensure that teachers and parents feel as though they are ‘partners’ in such projects, thus increasing acceptance and reducing principal-agent problems. Suspicions regarding corruption and disagreements with the governments who start certain projects may be reduced through dialogue and feedback mechanisms. This recommendation is particularly pertinent in areas where the incumbent government does not enjoy the support of the population, which may have lower rates of acceptance due to their preexisting political viewpoints.

A move away from a ‘top-down’ approach, as seen in the OTPC case, will serve to more closely align the interests and opinions of government with those of teachers and students. Thus, dialogue can increase acceptance, and help the project in terms of implementation. Furthermore, one may find that the views of teachers and parents diverge significantly from those of policymakers, and hence, the aims of projects of such projects may have to be adjusted. This should be seen as a positive both intrinsically, as the views of teachers and parents should be valued, and instrumentally, as the project’s


aims are more likely to be internalized to a greater extent. Increasing acceptance is crucial in teachers making the choice to teach with such new technologies, instead of merely having the capability to but choosing not to due to other reasons.

Address all the above concurrently as many of the weak system points areinterconnected and reinforce each other

Whilst addressing these concerns will have an impact individually, the Thai government may wish to address all concerns concurrently given the reinforcing nature of some of these concerns. For example, whilst acceptance should be tackled through a dialogue with teachers, issues regarding the quality of ICT and the lack of appropriate content also led to teachers being more sceptical towards the project, decreasing acceptance, as well as the level of classroom integration that teachers could achieve with poor quality ICT. Greater evaluation and feedback mechanisms would contribute to the project accounting for differences in rural-urban, student or teacher capabilities to a greater extent, as well as better classroom integration, and a greater rate of teacher acceptance who can then feedback their concerns and improve the project and feel like equal partners in the project. Accounting for differences based on specific variables such as rural-urban divides, regional variations, and student and teacher variations will inevitably make the process of classroom integration of ICT smoother. Better classroom integration will also lead to a greater level of teacher acceptance. Figure 15 shows the interconnected nature of our weak variables and presents a visual case for tackling all issues concurrently.

Figure 15: The interconnected nature of the weak points identified

Accounting for differences

Monitoring andEvaluation

Supply Side Issues

AcceptanceClassroom Integration


Conclusion

This report presents mixed results. Whilst the survey results present a slightly positive picture of teacher’s capabilities and attitudes towards the OTPC project, interviews and other comments present a more negative image of the project. Problems regarding procurement, a lack of adequate training relating to ICT and it’s relation to pedagogies, a lack of accounting for variation in student and teacher capabilities and attitudes, a lack of evaluation and low levels of acceptance from teachers are all problems that need to be addressed for future projects. A fundamental shift from a top-down approach to an approach which values a dialogue with all the key stakeholders, primarily teachers but also parents, will help increase acceptance of the project and align it closer with the needs and wants of Thai society. In doing so, such projects will no longer be seen as ‘ICT projects’, but education projects, thus allowing teachers to integrate and align such projects with their own pedagogies.


References

Apiola, M., Pakarinen, S., & Tedre, M. 2011. Pedagogical outlines for OLPC initiatives: A case of Ukombozi school in Tanzania. AFRICON, 1–7.

Bangkok Post. 2012. Tablet study finds city, rural schools need different content [ONLINE] www.bangkokpost.com/archive/tablet-study-finds-city-rural-schools-need-different-content/280760 [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Bangkok Post. 2013. 30% tablets broken: Govt auditor’s report. [ONLINE] www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/373457/30-tablets-broken-govt-auditor-report [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Bangkok Post. 2014. Get Smart. [ONLINE] www.bangkokpost.com/tech/gadget/418414/get-smart [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Beitler, D. 2013. National Programmes, Technical Projects. Ph.D thesis, London School of Economics. [ONLINE] http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/791/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Etheses_Content_Theses%20submitted%20by%20students%20%26%20alumni_Live%20theses_Beitler_ethnography_one_laptop_2013(public).pdf [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Cristia et al. 2012. Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program. IDB Working Paper Series No. IDB-WP-304.

Connell, M. L. 1998. Technology in constructivist mathematics classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Vol.17(4), pp. 311–338

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T. & Rhodes, V. 2003. ICT and Pedagogy: A review of the research literature. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency: ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series - No.18. [ONLINE] Available at: https://wiki.inf.ed.ac.uk/twiki/pub/ECHOES/ICT/ict_pedagogy_summary.pdf [Last accessed 10th November 2015].

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T. & Rhodes, V. 2004. A review of the research literature relating to ICT and attainment. BECTA ICT research report to the DfES. [ONLINE] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265003809_ICT_and_Attainment_A_Review_of_the_Research_Literature [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Derndorfer, Christoph. C. 2010. OLPC in Uruguay: Impressions of Plan Ceibal’s Primary School XO Laptop Saturation. Education Technology Debate. [ONLINE] Available at: http://edutechdebate.org/olpc-in-south-america/olpc-in-uruguay-impressions-of-plan-ceibal/. [Accessed 30 June 15].

Dreyfus, T. & Halevi, T. 1991. QuadFun – A case study of pupil computer interaction. Journal of


Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Vol.10(2), pp. 43–48.

Fajebe et al. 2013. Is the One Laptop Per Child Enough? Viewpoints from Classroom Teachers in Rwanda. Information Technologies and International Development. Vol. 9(3), pp. 29-42

Futuregov. 2013. One Tablet Per Child Policy: Stepping Up Education Reform. [ONLINE] http://tct-test-reference-materials.yolasite.com/resources/ONE%20TABLET%20PER%20CHILD%20POLICY%20%20STEPPING%20UP%20EDUCATION%20REFORM.pdf [Last accessed 10 November 2015]

Glewwe, P., & Kremer, M. (2006). Schools, teachers and education outcomes in developing countries. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Education. North Holland.

Hawkridge, D. 1990. Computers in Third World Schools: The Example of China. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 21(1), pp.4-20

Hoffelder, N. 2012. ‘What The Report On Peru’s OLPC Program Really Means’. The Digital Reader. [ONLINE] Available at: http://the-digital-reader.com/2012/04/09/what-the-report-on-perus-olpc-program-really-means/ [Accessed 30 June 15].

James. 2010. New Technology in Developing Countries: A Critique of the One-Laptop-Per-Child Program. Social Science Computer Review. Vol. 28(3), pp. 381-390

Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. 2009. One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 52(6), 66–73.

Leaning, M. 2010. The One Laptop per Child Project and the problems of technology-led educational development. In: Berson, I.R., Berson, M.J. ed. High-Tech Tots: Childhood in a Digital World. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC

One Laptop Per Child. 2005. Mission Statement [ONLINE] Available at: http://laptop.org/en/vision/mission/index.shtml. [Last accessed 10th November 2015].

Pruet, P., Ang, C. S. & Farzin, D. 2014. Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behaviour. Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.063 [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Robeyns, I. 2006. Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 4(1), pp.69-84.

Sambandaraksa, D. 2012. Thailand’s OTPC project will be a mess. Telecom in Asia. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.telecomasia.net/blog/content/thailands-otpc-project-will-be-mess [Last accessed 10th November 2015]


Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

The Economist. 2012. Let them eat tablets. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.economist.com/node/21556940 [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Tech in Asia. 2013. Thailand’s one tablet per child program rocked by claims of 30% broken tablets. [ONLINE] https://www.techinasia.com/thailands-tablet-child-program-rocked-claims-30-broken-tablets/ [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Tech in Asia. 2014. Thailand’s One Tablet Per Child faces another dead end as a Chinese manufacturer cancels the deal. [ONLINE] https://www.techinasia.com/thailands-tablet-child-faces-dead-chinese-manufacturer-cancels-deal/ [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

The Nation. 2012. Tablets ‘could take nearly 3 years’. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Tablets-could-take-nearly-3-years-30180638.html [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

The Nation. 2014. A mixture of IT solution may be the best way out of the One Tablet scheme. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/A-mixture-of-IT-solutions-may-be-best-way-out-of-O-30235208.html [Last accessed 10th November 2015]

Unterhalter, E., Vaughan, R. & Walker, M. 2007. Education and the Capability Approach. Prospero. Vol 13(3)

Van de Bogart, W. 2012. Developing Multi-literacy Skills in e-Learning Environments using Tablet Computers at the Primary Grade Level in Thailand. Proceedings of The Fourth TCU International e-Learning Conference, “Smart Innovations in Education & Lifelong Learning”, Nonthaburi, Thailand. June 14-15, 2012.

Viriyapong, R. & Harfield, A. 2013. Facing the challenges of the One-Tablet-Per-Child policy in Thai primary school education. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 4(9), pp. 176-184

Warschauer, M. & Ames, M. 2010. Can One Laptop Per Child Save The World’s Poor? Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 64(1), pp. 33-51.

Winocur, R. & Aguerre, C. 2011. A paradigmatic case: the ‘Plan CEIBAL’. Infoamerica, Vol. 5, pp.59-68.

Winston, B. 2007. Let Them Eat Laptops: The Limits of Technicism. International Journal of Communication, Vol 1, pp. 170-176

Zheng, Y. 2009. Different spaces for e-development: What can we learn from the capability approach? Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15(2), pp.66-82.


1. How old are you? 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

2. What grades do you teach? Prathom 1 Matthayom 1 Prathom 2 Matthayom 2 Prathom 3 Matthayom 3 Prathom 4 Matthayom 4 Prathom 5 Matthayom 5 Prathom 6 Matthayom 6

3. How long have you been teaching?

4. How long have you taught this grade?

5. What subjects do you teach?

6. What is your highest education level? Primary School Middle School High School Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree

7. For how long did you use the tablets?

8. What did you see as the main purpose of the tablets? Please select up to 3 and rank in order:a. To help children know how to use computers and technology, and become ‘e-literate’.

b. To help children know how to use computers for future careers (not necessarily in the IT sector)

c. To help children learn quicker through the use of technology. Therefore, grades will improve due to the use of

laptops.

d. To help children have more control over their learning and rely less on the teacher for guidance

e. To reduce the costs of teaching, as other teaching materials are not needed

f. To help teachers as a tool to organize their teaching

g. Other, please state.

Please disagree or agree with the following statements:

9. I have good ICT skills

10. I felt confident using the tablets when teaching

11. I used the tablets often when teaching

12. Adequate guidance was provided by the school to train me how to use the tablets and integrate them into the classroom

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neitheragree nordisagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Not Sure

Appendices

Appendix A: Survey in English


Please disagree or agree with the following statements:

13. I knew how to integrate the tablets into the existing curriculum well

14. The school helped maintain and update the tablets when needed

15. The software and teaching content provided on the laptops worked well within the current curriculum

16. The dynamic between student and teacher changed due to the introduction of tablets

17. The tablets transformed the way I teach my students

18. ICT is very important to how I teach

19. The tablets improved the grades of students

Are there any other comments you would like to make regarding the OTPC policy?

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neitheragree nordisagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Not Sure


Appendix B: Survey in Thai

1. คุณอายุเท่าไหร่ 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

2. คุณสอนชั้นปีอะไร ประถม 1 มัธยม 1

ประถม 2 มัธยม 2





3. คุณสอนหนังสือมาเป็นระยะเวลาเท่าไหร่แล้ว 4 คุณสอนชั้นปีนี ้มานานเท่าไหร่แล้ว

5. คุณสอนวิชาอะไร

6. คุณจบการศึกษาระดับอะไร ประถมศึกษา มัธยมศึกษาตอนต้น มัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย ปริญญาตรี ปริญญาโท

7. คุณใช้งานแท็บเล็ตมาเป็นระยะเวลานานเท่าไหร่แล้ว

8. คุณคิดว่าวัตถุประสงค์หลักของแท็บเล็ตคืออะไร? กรุณาเลือกคำาตอบและเรียงลำาดับตามความสำาคัญ:ก.ช่วยให้เด็กได้รู ้จักการใช้งานคอมพิวเตอร์และเทคโนโลยีและกลายเป็น‘ผู้มีความรู้ด้านไอที’ข.ช่วยให้เด็กได้รู ้วิธีการใช้งานคอมพิวเตอร์สำาหรับใช้ในอาชีพอนาคต(ไม่จำาเป็นต้องอยู่แผนกไอที)ค.ช่วยให้เด็กเรียนรู้ได้อย่างรวดเร็วผ่านการใช้งานเทคโนโลยีดังนี้ผลการเรียนจะดีขึ้นจากาการใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ง.เด็กสามารถควบคุมการเรียนรู้ได้มากขึ้นและพึงพาคำาแนะนำาของครูผู้สอนน้อยลงจ.ลดค่าใช้จ่ายในการสอนเพราะไม่จำาเป็นต้องใช้สื่อการสอนอื่นๆฉ.เป็นเครื่องมือที่ช่วยให้ครูผู้สอนบริหารจัดการการสอนช.อื่นๆโปรดระบุ

กรุณาแสดงความเห็นสำาหรับข้อความต่อไปนี้:

9. ฉันมีทักษะด้านเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารที่ด ี

10. ฉันรู้สึกมั่นใจในการใช้งานแท็บเล็ตในการสอน

11. ฉันใช้งานแท็บเล็ตในการสอน

12. ฉันได้รับคำาแนะนำาอย่างเพียงพอจากโรงเรียนในการใช้งานแท็บเล็ตและนำามาใช้กับชั้นเรียน

13. ฉันทราบวิธีการใช้งานแท็บเล็ตร่วมกับหลักสูตรการสอนที่มีอยู่

ไม่เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง

ไม่เห็นด้วย เฉยๆ เห็นด้วย เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง

ไม่แน่ใจ


กรุณาแสดงความเห็นสำาหรับข้อความต่อไปนี้:

14. โรงเรียนช่วยบำารุงรักษาและอัพเดทแท็บเล็ตเมื่อมีความจำาเป็น

15. ซอฟต์แวร์และเนื้อหาการสอนที่มีในแล็ปท็อปทำางานตามหลักสูตรการสอนได้เป็นอย่างดี

16. เมื่อแท็บเล็ตเข้ามา ความกระตือรือร้นระหว่างนักเรียนและครูผู้สอนเปลี่ยนไป

17. แท็บเล็ตไปเปลี่ยนวิธีการที่ฉันสอนนักเรียน

18. เทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสารมีความสำาคัญมากต่อวิธีการสอนของฉัน

19. แท็บเล็ตทำาให้ผลการเรียนของนักเรียนดีขึ้น

คุณมีความเห็นอ่ืนๆเก่ียวกับนโยบายแท็บเล็ตพีซีเพ่ือการศึกษาไทยหรือไม่

ไม่เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง

ไม่เห็นด้วย เฉยๆ เห็นด้วย เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง

ไม่แน่ใจ

ICT in the Thai classroom - London School of · PDF fileis the ‘One Laptop per Child’ (OLPC) scheme founded and championed by Nicholas Negroponte, with ‘OLPC’ schemes in....

Documents