Welcome to Student-Centered Learning Thailand
LONG LIVE THE KING!
To provide a center of discussion , information and planning for 21st Century education reform in Thailand that will lead to a unity of purpose and action among Thai and international educators to realize the goals set forth in the National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999).
At the heart of this National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) is a move toward student-centered learning and a student-centered classroom. Specifically, Section 24 of the Education Act outlines what must be done to improve education performance : 1. arranging learning in line with the students’ interests , aptitudes and individual differences ;2. training students in thinking abilities, especially critical thinking; 3.organizing learning activities that draw from authentic experiences; and 4. promoting situations where learners and teachers learn together.
In addition to addressing these key issues of education reform in Thailand , indeed in international education, we also focus our attention and resources on the goal of promoting Thai teachers to reach their potential as skilled teachers using teaching methods that engage their students with the result that students love to learn through self discovery.
ยินดีต้อนรับสู่ Student-Centered Learning ประเทศไทย
เพื่อสร้างศูนย์ข้อมูล การแลกเปลี่ยนข้อคิดเห็นและวางแผนสำหรับการปฏิรูปการศึกษาของประเทศไทยในศตวรรษที่ 21 อันจะนำไปสู่การปฏิบัติอันเป็นไปในทิศทางเดียวกันของนักการศึกษาไทยและต่างประเทศเพื่อให้บรรลุเป้าหมายที่กำหนดไว้ในพระราชบัญญัติการศึกษาแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2542 (1999)
ใจความสำคัญของพระราชบัญญัตินี้คือการมุ่งไปสู่การเรียนรู้และการเรียนการสอนในห้องเรียนโดยมีนักเรียนเป็นศูนย์กลาง โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งมาตรา 24 ที่กำหนดถึงสิ่งที่ต้องทำเพื่อพัฒนาประสิทธิภาพของการศึกษาไทยคือ : 1. จัดการศึกษาให้สอดคล้องกับความสนใจ, ความถนัดที่แตกต่างกันของนักเรียนแต่ละคน; 2. อบรมนักเรียนให้มีความสามารถในการคิดวิเคราะห์ด้วยตนเอง; 3. จัดกิจกรรมการเรียนรู้จากประสบการณ์จริง; และ 4. ส่งเสริมการเรียนการสอนที่ครูและนักเรียนได้เรียนรู้ร่วมกัน
OUR THIRD YEAR ANNIVERSARY: Democracy and Education
By Peter J. Foley, editor-in-chief
Featured this month of July — marking the third year anniversary of Student Centered Learning Thailand (SCLThailand.org) —is the important debate on how teachers should help their students learn.
For three years now, SCL Thailand’s web site has promoted a balanced literacy approach to instruction in the classroom that also often includes a section of ten to twenty minutes of direct instruction on the skill to be mastered that day in the classroom. In the debate discussed in this month’s article, the educators took what the editors of SCL Thailand consider one sided positions. On the one hand you have advocates of teachers constantly using a “muscular” approach to teaching, which is, lecturing the students. This approach is one where the teacher is the sage and pours forth the knowledge that students must drink in for all or most of a class period. These advocates are at the extreme end of the Common Core’s muscular teaching spectrum.
On the other hand, there are the extremes of never having the teacher at the front of the room instructing but a predominant situation where the teacher is helping groups or individuals to master concepts and ideas. These are the extreme ends of what are sometimes called balanced literacy approaches. Far too often educators refuse to see the value in both approaches and thus, do not incorporate what we term a balanced approach, that is, make use of both approaches into their teaching.
For three years we have promoted the approach the Thai parliament described in its 1999 National Education Act. This enlightened reform called for student centered learning as being a key element of teaching and learning in Thai schools and the Act detailed changes required in the Thai classroom that would bring about a more balanced approach to teaching, that is, a move decidedly away from straight classroom lecturing by the teacher.
We think section 24 of the Thai Education Act, is worth quoting here:
In organizing the learning process, educational institutions and agencies concerned shall:
(1) provide substance and arrange activities in line with the learners’ interests and aptitudes, bearing in mind individual differences;
(2) provide training in thinking process, management, how to face various situations and application of knowledge for obviating and solving problems;
(3) organize activities for learners to draw from authentic experience; drill in practical work for complete mastery; enable learners to think critically and acquire reading habit and continuous thirst for knowledge;
(4) achieve, in all subjects, a balanced integration of subject matter, integrity, values, and desirable attributes;
(5) enable instructors to create the ambiance, environment, instructional media and facilities for learners to learn and be all-round persons, able to benefit from research as part of the learning process. In so doing, both learners and teachers may learn together from different types of teaching-learning media and other sources of knowledge;
(6) enable individuals to learn at all times and in all places. Co-operation with parents, guardians, and all parties concerned in the community shall be sought to develop jointly the learners in accord with their potentiality.
The debate over the student centered learning sub set, balanced literacy and what some see as a separate approach to teaching, known as Common Core is very much in play in the Kingdom of Thailand. How Thai students are taught is reflective of what kind of political system will finally develop.
At SCLThailand we feel that the National Education Act of 1999, especially section 24, pointed Thai students in the direction of being part of a full democratic participatory system in the future. We will continue to advocate for these educational reforms that are still, a decade and a half later, waiting to be realized.
Posted by: admin in: Uncategorized
Student Center Learning Debate: Common Core vs Balanced Literacy
By Peter J. Foley, Ed.D.
The purpose of this article is to take the reader through some current arguments that are part of the debate over student centered learning. At the risk of being simplistic, the current thrust of the student centered learning advocates is to dethrone teachers from their traditional lofty perch at the front of the classroom lecturing on a topic for an entire class period. The extreme is the teacher—all too often found in Thailand—just feeding the students information with little or no chance for class discussion or exchange. At worst this teacher monologue continues for the whole class period. In fairness there are model schools throughout Thailand that have become much more student centered. There are also some private foundations that have spearheaded effective student centered model schools like the Lampaimat Pattana School for elementary school and the Michai Pattana School for high school. Both schools are located side by side in Lampimat, Burirum in northeast Thailand.
Research has shown that students normally can only absorb what a teacher is teaching for a maximum period of 20 minutes. In sum, if the traditional lecture method of teaching just described is used, student will probably be receiving about half the information the teaching is explaining at best.
Student centered learning proponents want a much more balanced schedule of teacher and student activities. For example, the classroom might start with the teacher explaining for 10 or 15 minutes the basic lesson for the day and then have students “turn and talk” about what they think the lesson is about with their fellow students. Then the teacher might introduce problems to be solved using the instructions given at the beginning of the lesson either in groups or individual work while the teacher goes around to each group or students to help . At the same time the teacher makes formative assessments to see how well individual students are grasping the information or concept.
An extension of the argument for student centered learning is currently being waged in the U.S.A. under the banner of balanced literacy vs common core. A lot of the arguments now center on elementary education, particularly on how to teach reading.
On July 3, 2014 , the New York Times featured this debate. In New York City the city government from 2003 to 2008 mandated balanced literacy methodology. Even at the end of the 1990 many teachers in New York City accepted balanced literacy as a correct way to teach. Teachers across grades and subjects were told to follow a “workshop model”, i.e. a short mini-lesson followed by practice group or independent work, then a final sum up of learnings at the end of the class. At this time, therefore, student centered learning advocates were winning the day, at least in New York City.
One of the debaters in this New York Times feature was Diana Senechal, author of Republic of Noise, The Loss of Solitude in Schools and Culture. She argues that such pointed structuring of class lessons is wrong because so much depends on what is being taught, so the best teaching method for a particular learning sessions should be entirely left up to the teacher to decide. But this argument fails because traditional teachers—when given a choice—do not change. Despite a specific policy for a change to student centered learning in Thailand back in 1999, there has been only incremental change , and Thailand’s rural areas continue to be dominated by teachers using traditional teaching methods only.
Another New York Times participant in the debates , Claire Needell, the author of Nothing Real, argues that a balanced literacy approach gives too much freedom to students to decide what they want to read, especially on the elementary school level. Student get the impression that books are for their pleasure only and they need not tackle more difficult texts or subjects that they are not interested in. The end result, she contends, is that students will be unprepared for the rigors of high school , and later, college subjects.
And this is the main point of the common core advocates that have come to dominate the U.S.A. landscape during the eight years of the Bush administration and into the Obama Administration. American Schools must be accountable and standardized testing is the key to holding public schools and teachers accountable. This was the central thinking behind President Bush’s signature program called “Leave No Child Behind.” The actual Common Core Standards were written in 2009 under the guidance of the National Governors Association among others.
Thailand has its own Common Core and its own standardized testing. It would appear that both the United States and Thailand suffer from a testing meritocracy that favors students who, by accident of birth, are from the upper income families.
The problem with common core standards in both countries is that the standards are rigid and fail to test the real intelligence and over-all abilities of the test takers. Moreover, in countries following common core and over dependent on standardized tests, teachers are unable to teach creatively and teach for deep understanding since they are judged on how well their students do on the standardized tests.
Diane Ravitch, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, says that U.S. schools currently are over dependent on standardized tests. Furthermore, such testing is unjust since students from poverty backgrounds or minority , non-English speaking backgrounds will perform, on average, less successfully. Cannot the same be said for Thailand? Is there not an opportunity gap between rich and poor opening wider and wider in both countries? And isn’t one of the cause and over dependency on standardized tests that results in many worthy students to be cut off from further education?
Posted by: admin in: Uncategorized
by Peter J. Foley, Ed.D. , editor-in-chief
This month’s feature article is focused on a story featured in The New York Times about a courageous school girl in Vietnam. The story is about her uncommon will to learn, to become educated despite poverty and lack of support from her parents. She is an exception. Nevertheless her story highlights what can happen when a girl from a poverty background gets an education.
There have been vigorous efforts to improve education for all (EFA), and in particular girls, going back to 2000 when the gender disparity of girls out of school compared with boys was 60% to 40% globally. That gender gap in educational opportunity between boys and girls has narrowed considerably and hopefully will reach an equal ratio globally within this decade. Developing countries are becoming more and more aware that investments in girls’ education is one of the best ways to improve the overall economy of a nation.
Research shows that:
■ Educated women are more empowered and better able to demand their rights, as well as having healthier, more economically-secure families.
■ A girl who completes basic education is three times less likely to contract HIV.
■ Children born to educated mothers are twice as likely to survive past the age of 5.
■ A 1% increase in the number of women with secondary education can increase annual per capita economic growth by 0.3%.
The EFA’s 2008 global report revealed that gender parity in primary education in Thailand is likely to be achieved by 2015 and in secondary education there are actually more girls than boys enrolled. The EFA’s mid-decade assessment conducted by UNICEF shows that there are fewer girls than boys enrolled in primary education in Thailand. In contrast, there are fewer boys enrolled in secondary education than girls.
In other words, girls in primary education in Thailand may face more disadvantages in accessing education, but are close to parity. In secondary education boys may face more disadvantages than girls in accessing education, but are close to parity as well. However, there is still a lack of research in this area that could determine whether there is systematic gender inequality in terms of accessing education, especially girls from poverty backgrounds.
A study commissioned by PLAN on girls’ education in the north of Thailand shed some light on this situation, but still left many unanswered questions on what happens to girls in the many poverty pockets of the north. The Vietname girl in this month’s feature article who fought to get an education is the exception. Most girls in Southeast Asia, including Thailand , who are born into poverty , by and large, remain in the poverty trap because of a lack of education.
More research needs to be done to measure just how large this problem looms and what effect
the lack of education of girls from poverty backgrounds has on Thai society both in social and economic terms.
THE CASE FOR GIRLS’ EDUCATION : A Call for Help
Peter J. Foley, Ed.D. , editor in chief
This month we are doing something for the first time. We are presenting an op ed piece written by Nickolas Kristof.
Below you will find a link to Kristof’s moving article of a Vietnamese girl from a poor farming family who refused to give up on getting an education. In Thailand there are thousand of young girls in exactly the same situation. But most Thai girls would not refuse their families call for economic help and so they fall into the trap of leaving school after Moo 3 and taking a menial job and, because of their lack of education ,remain in the cycle of poverty. What I would like our readers to think about is how we can support the girls who want to carry on their education – and that means also to think about how we can support the families of girls from poverty backgrounds too. In most cases the pressure on young girls from poverty backgrounds is just too great to offer the resistance that Tay Ti in the article below was able to muster.
Posted by: admin in: Uncategorized
Student Centered Learning and Brain Based Learning
By Peter J. Foley, Ed.D., editor in chief
This month’s article talks about using brain- based learning in the class room. Brain- based teaching and learning is simply using what we know about how the brain processes learning and applying those principles to our teaching methods. Not surprisingly, the connection with student centered learning overlaps. In listing some examples of a strategy based on brain research below, I hope to give the teacher/reader a platform to dig deeper into making their classrooms more student centered and more brain-friendly.
Example 1: Limit your daily lesson plan learning objectives. Make each objective short and to the point enough to be “digested” by your students. Large parcels of teaching, especially by lecturing, tax the brain and too much will overtax the brain. The result is the students learn next to nothing. Research shows our working memory is very limited and so is our mid term, ”holding tank”, capacity controlled by the hippocampus.
Teachers should be making continual formative assessments to guide the improvement in learning content and the ideal time to deliver the learning objective and then make appropriate adjustments. For illustration, the teacher might follow up a short teaching parcel by asking students to write two sentences summing up the main ideas just delivered. A rule of thumb is to keep the lecture, or “input stage” to 15 minutes or under. This conforms with research showing that this is usually the limit of a student’s attention span.
Example 2: Teach with an understanding that each student learns differently and also have particular strengths and weakness in how they learn through their senses. Some have a dominant ability to learn visually, others, aurally, and still other kinesthetically. Hence, teachers should plan to appeal to students at different levels and using a variety of visual and aural and kinesthetic methodologies. The work educators are using is differentiation.
In sum, different strokes for different folks. *For more strategies based on research please see: http://feaweb.org/brain-based-learning-strategies. To discover the basis of the current emphasis on differentiation in teaching you may want to refer to Gardener, et al and their work at Harvard on the different types of intelligence.
Brain Based Teaching: KISS
by Peter J. Foley, Ed.D.
David Sousa – “Lecture continues to be the most prevalent model in secondary and higher education but produces the lowest degree of retention.”
In Thailand I have met teachers who use brain based teaching in their classroom. This is good. What is disappointing is that the approach to using brain based teaching is incomplete and often the research behind the teaching practice is only partially understood or not understood at all. For example, some Thai teachers use the mind mapping techniques with students in order to help the students design their own learning projects. What teachers often fail to do is to coach students to connect the mind mapping exercises to what they already know, what they hope to learn, and where they will find out the information to complete a particular project or exercise. Moreover, there is often a huge gap in the students’ mind-mapping plans and the student’s real, personal interests and the students’ experience. In fact the planned project often turns out to be what the teacher is interested in, not the students. And it also turns out to be based on the teacher’s experience, not the students.
A cardinal rule of brain based teaching is that learning that connects to a learner’s experience and interests will optimize long term memory learning. What teachers must master is how to set up a classroom and lesson plans that will optimize learning. You do this by understanding what conditions and methods of learning an individual’s brain needs to learn best. For most teachers the KISS (keep it simple stupid) rule should be followed.
To keep it simple, it is useful to remember Craine and Craine’s three principles of complex learning:
1. relaxed alertness
2. orchestrated immersion and
3. active processing.
Effective teaching starts with creating a friendly, nurturing classroom. It is common sense (and research shows) that fear and threats close a mind to complex learning and the mind goes to survival mode. Thus teachers who rely on negative criticism and verbal and corporeal punishments or otherwise instilling fear in his/her students are actually preventing learning. Brain research evidence suggests that stress is a significant factor in creativity, memory, behavior and learning. Teachers who purposely manage stress factors (purposefully decrease stress of failure or embarrassment) in class are likely to experience a positive classroom environment. There are many ways to decrease stress in the classroom, such as integrating stretching exercises, incorporating recess, teaching coping skills, and utilizing physical education.
The teacher can create relaxed alert students when the role of the teacher becomes that of a coach, one who nurtures, encourages, demonstrates with enthusiasm and purposefulness.
As the term “orchestrated immersion” implies, the teacher becomes the orchestra leader composing lesson plans that incorporate experiences that will lead students to make meaningful connections. To cite an illustration, in Bradenton, Florida I observed a class where the math teacher taught measurements, including the metric system, using cooking as an experiential springboard. The teacher had learned that many in his class were passionate about cooking. Small groups of students worked out measurements for individual recipes. All the students were totally engaged in the preparation of different recipes. Every one passed the core curriculum skills test on weights and measurement with no difficulty.
A teacher’s lesson should give time and space for student to reflect on what they are learning. It is also important that during the processing time the teacher makes formative assessment to check students’ understanding of the concepts just taught. A useful reflective instrument is the keeping by each student their own journal that can be sued by both student and teacher to tract the student/s progress and further questions.
Another simple list that can be used by teachers to help create good brain based teaching practices is the use of Susan Kovalik’s model ITI (Integrated Thematic Instruction). Kovalik lists nine brain-compatible elements in the learning process:
Absence of Threat( this should include the threat of failure by students)
Movement to Enhance Learning
Mastery (application level)
Our last simple guideline to brain based teaching and learning is from Marlee Sprenger: Sensory to Long-Term Memory in Seven Steps.
1. Reach: Grab students’ attention by introducing the topic in a way that is meaningful to them.
2. Reflect: Allow students to make connections between new information and prior learning through such activities as writing or responding to a question.
3. Recode: Have students put ideas they have encountered in their own words.
4. Reinforce: Provide positive reinforcement to students when recoding is accurate, or give informational feedback to avoid lingering misconceptions.
5. Rehearse: Engage students in related activities that demand higher levels of thinking and incorporate multiple memory systems.
6. Review: Offer brain-compatible review activities such as practice tests, games, drawing, writing, mind maps, and acting.
7. Retrieve: Ask students to retrieve newly-formed memories and apply them in different ways.
Within these steps there are many opportunities to incorporate brain based learning. For example in the reflection step it is useful to turn to your neighbor and discuss a topic. Stopping at key interval in a lesson for students to reflect on a topic with one another is a way to achieve long term memory learning. Humans are social and we learn and reinforce learning through interaction with others. The brain based teaching conscious teacher will also be aware that the short attention spans of the average student demand appealing to different senses for learning and different learning exercises to hold students attention. Make these simple principles and active part of your classroom planning and actuation.
This short review of some of some of the best guidelines to brain based teaching and learning is intended to encourage the reader to delve further into using brain based teaching methods and to KISS ( Keep it Simple Stupid).
1. R. Caine and G. Caine: Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain ( 1991)
2. Susan Kovalik: The Model Integrated Thematic Instruction (1993)
3. Marlee Sprenger: Becoming a “Wiz” at Brain-Based Teaching (2006)
from the dictionary: learning that is genuine, real, not false or copied…
from latin: Original., primary, at first hand
In Tasmania in 1980 Rob Banfield started teaching in science, maths, and a few other areas. He has taught in Java at Bandung International School. He holds an Ed.D in leadership professional learning and has keen interests in curriculum design, pedagogy development, effective leadership and strategic planning.
Why would we be interested in authentic learning, surely all learning is authentic?
Perhaps NOT! Some learning has to be not first hand and uses copied texts and demonstrations. Safety, efficiency and the practicalities of schools demand these professional boundaries.
However, we know that engagement of students in real learning often increases their motivation, energy and indeed their learning of new concepts and applied skills.
My enthusiasm for this authentic style of teaching has a few personal waypoints. One particular “hard to teach class” in 1983 encouraged me to manipulate an entire Grade 9 Science Curriculum around the real science of cars. Cars were a real inquiry object with intrinsic interest to 15 year old boys! Later I was introduced to the idea of negotiated curriculums, where I let go of the reins and discovered the wealth of untapped knowledge already residing in the brains of my assigned students. Soon, real inquiries into astronomical Quasars with 13 year olds became a reality. In recent years I was fortunate enough to interact with Dan Buckley from the UK (certainly worth an extended Google). His work with students responding to real tender scopes to achieve real solutions to real problems, struck another cord with me. Dan’s innovative approach to curriculum motivated students as authentic learners whilst responding to skills and concepts demanded by the agreed curriculum.
Isolated examples are fine, but what is the potential to authenticate the curriculum in our everyday real world of technology?
I randomly selected the Grade 3 Australian Science Curriculum to apply my ideas of a real learning framework. I was first challenged by the science content areas of biology, earth, chemistry, and physical science areas as I read the curriculum scope. These areas contained dry, important things we need to know. So, I ventured across to the science inquiry skills list. Ah ha, here was the stuff of real science in my mind. Experiments, observation, data, reporting etc… But, alas the creative juices could still not conjure up a real life inquiry for my imaginary Grade 3 learners.
I opened up a digital skill link that took me to some Scootle learning objects and ideas. Here I found the seed of an authentic learning plan in amongst the suggestions on Shadows. The shadow inquiries had a clear link back to the earth science content field of planet rotation, seasons, day and night etc…
Now applying a little imagination here is my initial thinking for Grade 3 Science authentic inquiry.
“Our town council is processing a new application to allow for the building of a single 4 story office block in our main street. As part of the planning approval process, the councillors want to know what the shadowing effect will be on neighbouring buildings, the streetscape and people at various times of the day and the year. Currently the maximum height of buildings is limited to two stories. The council requires a 5 page report and a concise 20 minute presentation of your findings for a full Council Planning meeting in June.”
My class would work in 7 groups of four students and present to a genuine town planning engineer at a future time. My invited engineer would be asked to give feedback to each group and perhaps provide real written responses from his council division. My planning will involve the science, literacy and numeracy outcomes from Grade 3, an even some history outcomes.
I am keen, Grade 3 science is being applied to a real life problem, where we don’t know a prepared “proper” answer. The detailed planning, teaching and negotiation with people from outside my school needs to be done. The scope of the inquiry may change as my planning develops.
Learning can be (more) authentic, more motivating for students (and teachers) and integrate various discrete curriculum areas (as happens in the real world).
Authentic Teaching leads to authentic learning, the Twin Supports of
Student Centered Learning by Peter J. Foley, Ed.D
This month’s featured article about authentic learning got me thinking about authentic teaching. It occurred to me that both authentic teaching and authentic learning are joined at the hips, both being legs that student centered learning stands on.
It all boils down to a problem we all find hard to pin down: how can we define authentic teaching , that is , real teaching and not just going through the motions. It is tempting to reply in a similar fashion as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who struggled to define pornography and finally said: “I cannot define it , but I know it when I see it.”
That response is not adequate for educators who must make a judgment on teachers’ job performance. In an article I wrote in 2012 and is found in the SCLThailand archive , I attempted to give educators a comprehensive quantifiable teacher performance instrument. An alternative description of what constitutes good teaching is provided on a qualitative basis in Teaching As Leadership by Steven Farr, Teach for America. The following is Farr’s list of the core principles of effective teaching:
Of course, the devil is in the details. Nevertheless, if teachers keep these general principles in their minds and hearts their teaching will be more authentic and consequently their students’ learning will be more authentic.
N.B. Teach for America has expanded to other countries. Experts from Teach from America are currently in Thailand for the startup of Teach for Thailand. Teach for Thailand will be holding a training program for talented Thai college graduates who want to make a contribution to Thailand as new teachers who bring passion and a love of learning to the teaching experience. See the Job Opportunities menu on SCLThailand for more information about Teach for Thailand. *Farr, Steven. Teaching As Leadership 2010. page 33.
This month we are pleased to present an article by Mr Wichian Chaiyabang, Headmaster of Lamplaimat Patana School [LPMP] in Buriram province, Thailand.
This school provides a shining light on student centered learning and how a school where “thinking outside the education box” is the norm for all that happens in there. Under Wichian’s leadership, the LPMP team of educators is making a major contribution to the way Thai teachers teach, and the way Thai schools operate. LPMP has become a leading provider of professional learning programs for teachers from all parts of Thailand, through the programs it runs every week of the school year.
Many of those who have attended these professional learning workshops carry the message of educational change and the practical advice on how to do it, back to their own schools where they inevitably have an impact in their own classrooms and, if the conditions are right, they have an impact on a school wide basis. Throughout Thailand there are more schools similar to LPMP springing up. Like LPMP, they are small private schools, but they charge no fees, as they rely does on generating their own funding through donations and their own entrepreneurial activities.
In his article, Wichian addresses some important questions associated with measuring educational success. He argues that success in education is about educators seeing “that each child is equipped according to his or her capacity and is able to lead a life of value and contentment.”
I am sure there would be not much opposition for that proposition from thinking educators, but in this Information Age, there is evidence that schools and systems still want to push the acquisition of knowledge as one of the big priorities, and along with this they seek to develop in students the capacity to respond to knowledge seeking questions in examinations and tests which seem to be the norm for judging students’ success at school.
I am reminded of something John Lennon said of his own education; when he was in Year 6 at his Liverpool primary school, John’s his teacher set a task for the children to write, which was a short essay on the topic “What I want to be when I grow up”.
As the children wrote, the teacher wandered around the room looking at what they were writing. When she came to the Lennon, the future musical genius, she saw what he wrote ….he had written “When I grow up, I want to be happy” The teacher responded, “You don’t understand the question” Lennon responded immediately, “You don’t understand life”.
I do not know what mark he received for his short piece of work, but I am sure what he had written would have brought him a high score from teachers at LPMP and I would have given him a 10/10; we would have followed with frequent discussion the question on how does one achieve a life of happiness, and what does this mean anyway? A discussion which should be frequent in classrooms; in his article, Wichian touches on the deeper aspects of how we judge success.
In his third book, Outliers: the Story of Success [published by Little, Brown and Company on November, 2008], Malcolm Gladwell, the Canadian – English author, journalist and staff writer for the New Yorker magazine, examines the factors that lead to high levels of success in many fields of endeavour including sport, business and education.
In Outliers, Gladwell poses questions to try to determine how much individual potential is ignored by society. The book has been translated into Thai and is recommended reading for all school teachers.
Another important book on this topic is Paul Tough’s 2008 book, How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, [published by Houghton Mifflin in 2008 and 2012. This is an excellent study on the types of things that are mentioned in this month’s feature article. Tough argues that the story we usually tell about childhood and success is the one about intelligence: success comes to those who score highest on tests, from preschool admissions tests, and senior high school exam to SATs.
But in How Children Succeed, the author argues that the qualities that matter most for success have more to do with character; skills like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control.
These are some of the things that teachers can help develop in those they teach.
I hope you all enjoy Khun Wichian’s article which has been provided in both English and Thai.
Greg Cairnduff, March, 2014
The Author of this month’s feature, Khun Wichian Chaiyabang.
Wichian is Headmaster and Education Manager at Lamplaimat Pattana School, located in Buriram province, north-eastern Thailand.
He leads the school in the provision of professional learning programs for schools throughout Thailand and is frequently to speak at conferences, universities and other forums.
Wichian is also a prolific author, having written a wide range of fiction and non – fiction books as shown below.
“The King on Green Planet” (2005)
“The Boy and the Star” (2006)
“Starfish on the Beach” (2006)
“Everyone Dreams of Being That” (2011)
“The Proud Turtle” (2013)
Short Story Collection
“One Morning before the End of the World” (2006)
Young Adult Literature
“Wind and Prairie” (2008)
- Outstanding Book, 2009 National Book Week Award
- Outstanding Book, 2011 Seven Book Award
“Go Ahead and Pray to the Green Fairy” (2009)
- Outstanding Book, 2011 Seven Book Award
“School Outside-the-Box” (2008)
“Man on the Tree: Management and Leadership” (2009)
“Education Miracle (at School Outside-the-Box)” (2011)
“Spiritual Studies and Nurturing Inner Wisdom” (2011
How do we measure educational success? This is a question that we must ponder again and again, to make sure that the goals are not simply to satisfy the needs of grown-ups or determined with only certain children in mind. We must consider goals that are truly necessary for children and the future. We must keep in mind the holistic nature of all goals, so that each child is equipped according to his or her capacity and is able to lead a life of value and contentment.
In the past, our human thirst for knowledge has pushed us to study and understand so many things both concrete and abstract, to the point of creating a belief among many people that education means an accumulation of knowledge. This belief has led us to value knowledge teaching, evaluating knowledge and counting success by knowledge. However, deep down, we know that we want people to be good and kind, to live together in peace and mutual support, and to lead lives of value and contentment.
I believe most of us know what the challenges are and what we should do to improve education. But we are not putting in our best efforts. To surrender to the problem is easier, because it is a way of adapting and enabling us to achieve balance once again. A lower balance is degenerative adaptation. Most people choose this option because it is easier and justifiable in so many reasonable ways. Deep down, however, human nature has progressed so far because we have adapted in a different way – charging through obstacles. All throughout the history of human evolution, we have constantly pushed ourselves to overcome our limitations.
We are surrounded by rapid and violent changes. How should today’s education respond to these transformations? We must look beyond the shallow goals of knowledge, university entrance examinations, employment, etc. Education is a constant with so many hidden variables. It is gruelingly difficult to control the end result. Education as is may help us to remember that we must brush our teeth daily, that we must beware of falling from high places, that we can extract benefits from various things. But, as is, education has not achieved clear results in helping us realize how short life is.
All of us are involved in education, directly and indirectly. We must therefore do our best, like the gardener who tends to every tree and every aspect in the orchard, be it watering, fertilizing, pruning or getting rid of pests. The gardener’s hope is that these efforts will enhance and complete the natural capacity of the trees to bear fruit. Once everything has been done, the gardener can only watch and wait.
Lamplaimat Pattana School, an Outside the Box School, views our goal as developing learners in a holistic manner, enabling people to live together in peace, mutual support, with value and happiness. This kind of learning will enable learners to reach wisdom. There is outer wisdom, which is an understanding of the world and its phenomena, a set of knowledge and skills applicable to employment or maintenance of a quality livelihood. There is also inner wisdom, which is an understanding of oneself, an ability to perceive the emotions of oneself and others, to the point that one is able to manage those emotions. It is also recognizing the value in oneself and other people and things, to live with meaning, with awareness of the connectedness between oneself and the things around us, with humility toward all beings which mutually support one another, with the ability to coexist with fraternity and acceptance of differences, with respect toward others, with moderation and the ability to be satisfied, with constant awareness of oneself and one’s emotions, with the ability to distinguish when to stop and when to go on, with focus and persistence to complete tasks, and with a heart full of love and kindness.
Cultivating wisdom is more intricate than cultivating knowledge. The mature teacher will toil endlessly to help students reach this goal. The teacher’s maturity will help uphold such a grand goal and overcome any obstacles.