Publication: Strategy synthesis in driving education reform policy
0
0
Issued Date
2012
Resource Type
File Type
application/pdf
ISSN
14479494
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84874979585
Rights Holder(s)
มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ
Bibliographic Citation
International Journal of Learning. Vol 18, No.11 (2012), p.83-100
Suggested Citation
Wongwanich S., Sapsombat W., Intanam N., Ajpru H., Prasertsin U. Strategy synthesis in driving education reform policy. International Journal of Learning. Vol 18, No.11 (2012), p.83-100. doi:10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v18i11/47802 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/7137
Author(s)
Abstract
The purpose of the research was to study ways and driving strategies of the education reform policy; to study results and problems/obstacles of driving the education reform policy; and to study support and recommendations of driving strategies of the education reform (K-12) during the first decade in Thailand. Firstly, the study showed that major driving strategies were appointed at the policy level. At the educational service area office level, operations following the education reform policy were monitored systematically and continually in schools (91.07%). Additionally, working groups and implementation plans were formed at the school level (76.56%). Secondly, the operations at the policy and educational service area office levels were moderately successful. However, they were highly fruitful at the school level. At all three levels, the drive on activities was the most successful. At the policy level, school administrators and teachers were able to set an internal quality assurance system (Mean 3.07). At the educational service area office level, schools could adjust the central curriculum to the school-based curriculum (Mean 3.76). Teachers' performance assessment and evaluation were implemented at the school level (Mean 4.07). Thirdly, problems/obstacles were that attendants in teaching professional training sessions had low academic achievement; teacher development training was interrupted; school administrators and teachers did not apply the curriculum to in-class teaching; and school testing and evaluation did not go along with the university admission. The most important components at the educational service area office and school levels were clarity of the education reform policy, personnel's attitudes, knowledge and understanding of the first education reform. © Common Ground, Suwimon Wongwanich, Wisanu Sapsombat, Narongrith Intanam, Haruthai Ajpru, Ujsara Prasertsin.