The Smart Schools Initiative in Malaysia

Paper to be presented in the 10th UNESCO-APEID International Conference on Education “Learning Together for Tomorrow: Education for Sustainable Development”, 6-8 December 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.

The Malaysian Smart Schools Project: An Innovation to Address Sustainability

Eng-Tek Ong Faculty of Science and Technology Sultan Idris University of Education, Malaysia

Abstract:

In the advent of 21st Century, Malaysia has embarked on the Smart Schools Project which is one of the seven flagship applications that are part of the Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Initiative. This paper discusses the evolution of, and declaration embodied in, the Vision 2020 of Malaysia that serve to establish the needs and context for the Smart Schools Initiative. It then reviews the conceptualised framework of the Malaysian Smart School Model, looking at the various meanings, attributes and features for the concept of Smart Schools and comparing them with Perkins’ (1995) notion of Smart Schools. This paper then highlights the grassroots implementation from the students’ perspectives, delimiting its scope to the context of smart science teaching and learning. The findings from the grassroots implementation are used as a springboard for discussion on the implications for tomorrow’s education for sustainability.

Introduction Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed, the former Malaysian Prime Minister, delivered an impactful and significant documented speech entitled "Malaysia -- The Way Forward" at the inaugural meeting of the Malaysian Business Council in 1991 (Mohamed, 1991, 1993). This has led to the widely known Vision 2020. The document declares that by the year 2020, Malaysia would have achieved the status of a fully developed country, characterised by (1) a united Malaysian nation; (2) a psychological liberated, secure and developed Malaysian society; (3) a mature democratic society; (4) a fully moral and ethical society; (5) a mature liberal tolerant society; (6) a scientific and progressive society; (7) a fully caring society and a caring culture; (8) an economically just society; and (9) a prosperous society.

The declaration of Vision 2020 has catapulted the 60:40 policy of the Malaysian Ministry of Education to conscious awareness in the public domain. Conceptualised in 1967 by the Higher Education Planning Committee, this policy aims to achieve a ratio of 60:40 for science versus arts-based students by 2000. However, with the present scenario of not-very-encouraging enrolment in science-based subjects among Malaysian students, which is far from the desired target, this policy has been extended

1 for yet another 10 years. This is truly a national agenda as the successful realisation, or otherwise, of Vision 2020, is dependent on the outcome of the 60:40 policy.

The conceptualisation of Vision 2020 also propels Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to the forefront, which in turn, serves as catalyst for the transformation of the Malaysian educational system in 1999 -- the birth of the Smart Schools Initiative. The Smart Schools Initiative is one of the seven flagship applications that are part of Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project. The Government of Malaysia seeks to capitalise on the presence of leading-edge technologies and the rapid development of the MSC's infrastructure to jump-start deployment of enabling technology to schools. Hence, the formation of a group of 90 pilot Smart Schools in 1999 that are expected to serve as the nucleus for the eventual nation-wide deployment or rollout of Smart School teaching concepts and materials, skills, and technologies (Smart School Project Team [SSPT], 1997a). By 2010, the term ‘Smart’ is expected to be redundant when all schools, be they primary or secondary, would have been transformed to Smart Schools (SSPT, 1997b).

The Malaysian Smart School Conceptual Model The Ministry of Education started to conceptualise the Malaysian Smart School in 1996, under the leadership of the then Director-General of Education, Tan Sri Dato' Dr. Wan Zahid Wan Mohamed. The conceptualised document entitled "The Malaysian Smart School: A Conceptual Blueprint" (SSPT, 1997a) explains that the Malaysian Smart School concept is derived from best practices from around the world, as well as from the best home-grown practices of teachers and educators in Malaysia. In essence, the Malaysian Smart School is defined as: … a learning institution that has been systematically reinvented in terms of teaching-learning practices and school management in order to prepare children for the Information Age. A Smart School will evolve over time, continuously developing its professional staff, its educational resources, and its administrative capabilities. This will allow the school to adapt to changing conditions, while continuing to prepare students for life in the Information Age. To function effectively, the Smart School will require appropriately skilled staff and well-designed supporting processes (ibid., p.10).

One of the reasons for this conceptualisation is to transform the Malaysian educational system so that it is parallel with, and in support of, the nation’s drive to realise Vision 2020. The Vision calls for sustained, productivity-driven growth that will be achievable only with a scientifically and technologically literate, critical thinking work force prepared to participate fully in the global economy for the 21st Century. Furthermore, this transformation of educational system is within the aspiration of the Malaysian National Philosophy of Education that aims towards “developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious” (Ministry of Education, 1997, p.2).

Such a transformation in the educational system, catalysed by the technology- supported Smart Schools, entails changing school culture and pedagogical practices. The memory-based learning designed for average students is replaced by education that “stimulates thinking, creativity, and caring in all students; caters to individual

2 abilities and learning styles; and is based on more equitable access. It will require students to exercise greater responsibility for their own learning, while seeking more active participation by parents and the wider community” (SSPT, 1997a, p.9). A caveat is documented that takes account of the ever evolving world of education in that “the Smart School concept itself is still a work in progress and remains open to evolutionary refinement, including advances in pedagogy and improvement in information technology” (ibid., p.9).

The following two basic components of the Smart Schools will be discussed in the ensuing subsections:  Teaching and learning concepts  Technology enablers

(a) Teaching and Learning Concepts The most distinctive feature of the Smart School is the teaching and learning environment that builds on best practices from around the world. This includes the mutually reinforcing and coherent alignment of the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and teaching-learning materials.

Though the curriculum covers the same content as the existing science curriculum, it has a different format in that the intended learning outcomes are explicitly stated at different levels. This ensures that all students gain equal access to quality learning and allows for self-paced learning across grades. Knowledge to be infused in the Smart School curriculum in an integrated manner encompasses the following areas: “content knowledge, problem solving knowledge, epistemic knowledge, and inquiry knowledge” (SSPT, 1997a, p. 31). This matches perfectly to Perkins’ (1995) four levels of understanding differentiated in his discussion on pedagogy of understanding.

While the values to be infused in the Smart Schools are the same 16 values documented in the Mainstream science curriculum, the skills covered for the former are wider, and include information technology skills – the ability to select and use IT tools. In addition, the strong advocacy of explicit teaching of thinking skills, with different sets of skill vocabularies stipulated for two types of thinking -- critical thinking and creative thinking -- seems to have its roots in Perkins’ (1995) notion of “metacurriculum”, which is in turn, adapted from other leading theorists in the area of thinking (i.e., Costa, 1991; Paul, 1990).

Smart School pedagogy is to be ‘student-centred’ with the following characteristics (SSPT, 1997a, p.39): “(1) appropriate mix of learning strategies to ensure mastery of basic competencies and promotion of holistic development, (2) allowance for individual differences in learning styles to boost performance, and (3) classroom atmosphere compatible with different teaching-learning strategies”. However, the pedagogy advocated does not propose that student-centred teaching should prevail all the time. Instead, it should be “increase[d] in age and maturity” (ibid., p.39), implying the notion of a “centredness” continuum with teacher-centred at one extreme and student-centred at the other and teacher as mentor and model, and teacher as coach or facilitator in between. The element of mastery learning in the Smart School resembles Perkins’ (1995) idea of “Theory One and Beyond” which promotes, amongst others, thoughtful practice and informative feedback.

3 The Smart School assessment system (SSPT, 1997a) shall be “criterion-referenced” (p.51), “learner-centred” (p.52), “on-line” (p.53), and “conducted in various forms: classroom assessment, school-based assessment and centralised assessment … [so as] to allow different demonstrations of strengths, abilities, and knowledge” (p.54) using “multiple approaches and instruments to perform authentic, alternative, and performance assessments” (p.55). Nevertheless, these aspirations are far from reality when students from the Smart Schools are taking similar school-based and centralised assessments as their counterparts in the Mainstream Schools.

Teaching-learning materials are designed to support teaching-learning strategies for Smart Schools, and have these characteristics: “(1) Meet curricular and instructional needs, is cost effective, as well as cosmetically and technically adequate; (2) Cognitively challenging, attractive, motivates students to learn, and encourages active participation; [and] (3) Combine the best of network-based, teacher-based and courseware materials” (ibid., p.58). These resources, acquired within and beyond schools, are purported to have the benefits of “accommodat[ing] students’ different needs and abilities resulting in the fuller realisation of students’ capabilities and potential, [and] students tak[ing] responsibility for managing and directing their own learning” (ibid., p.58).

This leads to the demarcation of three key differences in the teaching and learning process of Smart Schools and Mainstream Schools, namely self-accessed, self-paced, and self-directed learning. Self-accessed learning means the students learn how to access and use relevant learning materials. Self-directed learning means that students learn how to direct, manage and plan their learning. Self-paced learning means that a student learns at his/her own pace, with enough challenging materials to help him/her achieve a certain competency level. Teaching will be done in such a way to help students achieve smart learning. Hence, when a student’s role is switched from a relatively dependent and passive one towards self-accessed, self-paced, and self- directed learning, the teacher’s role undergoes, in tandem, an evolution from ‘sage on the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’.

(b) Technology Enablers There have been disputes as to whether Smart Schools are associated with information technology (IT), and that smart teaching and learning can be implemented with or without IT. Gan (2000, p.81) maintains that, on the basis of the conceptual definition for Smart Schools that rests on the premise to educate Malaysian children for and with the tools of Information Age, “Smart Schools without IT will definitely not be able to produce generation of IT-literate Malaysian[s] ready for the challenges of the Information Age”. Furthermore, it has been persuasively argued that, “The journey of the Smart School project might otherwise be a long and gradual one, but we can now use technology to take us there quickly and efficiently” (SSPT, 1997a, p.37). The corollary that stems from such argument is that science teaching and student learning can be made more efficient and enabling with the use of technology.

The blueprint gives examples of IT-enriched teaching and learning practices and their implications for IT. For instance, in self-exploratory learning, the implication would be, “every computer shall have access to the latest educational materials available locally, as well as to external resources” (ibid., p. 102). Nevertheless, the blueprint suffers from a lack of specific examples as to how technology could be used as

4 enablers in science classes. This void is only partially filled when one refers to the science syllabuses that provide one or two-sentence descriptions on the suggested IT- enabled science teaching approaches such as the use of simulation, modelling, and computer-assisted experimentation to teach certain concepts.

Smart Schools and Sustainable Development As mentioned earlier, the concept of a Smart School is still a work in progress and hence, the evolutionary refinement reflects the advances in pedagogy and improvement in information technology. Equally, sustainable development is an evolving and dynamic concept in terms of its conceptual definition. Accordingly, this paper adopts the view advocated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) on the description of sustainable development: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising [or, impairing] the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [or, to enjoy similar, if not better, quality of life and opportunity as ours]” (p.43).

Sustainable development is generally perceived as an overlapping of dimensions or components, namely environment, (cultural and) society, and economy (UNESCO, 2005). These three dimensions are thought to operate, metaphorically, as three overlapping same-sized circles with the overlapping area being perceived as the human well-being. The more aligned the three dimensions are, the higher the area of overlapping which, in turn, translates to higher levels of human well-being. The corollary that stems from this metaphorical perception on sustainable development is that a balanced, harmonious, symbiotically interdependent, and aligned consideration of environmental, societal and economic dimensions is needed in our pursuit of development and enhanced quality of life.

Therefore, with the advent of Smart Schools, it is the hope that the future generations of Malaysia are adequately skilled and equipped for the Information Age without compromising the perpetuation of Malaysian cherished noble values and culture.

Grassroots Implementation This section reviews some literature pertaining to the implementation of Smart Schools Initiative. It should be noted that given the scarcity of research report that shows the extent to which the Smart Schools Initiative has taken root in classroom since its rollout in 1999, the author has conducted an implementation study which aimed to characterise the so-called ‘smart science teaching’ using multi-method survey of students, teachers, and lessons (Ong, 2004). However, due to the limited space, only reported findings of students’ perceptions on science learning experience in the Smart and Mainstream Schools (Ong & Ruthven, 2003, 2004a, 2004b) will be revisited.

The students’ perceptions are revealing in that they provide information on subtle but important aspects of classroom life (Fisher, 1994; Fraser, 1994). Additionally, the validity and reliability of students’ perceptions on their teachers and learning environment are no longer a bone of contention (Ramsden, 1997). Moreover, judging by previous studies, such usage is widespread among highly respected researchers (Fraser, 1981; Hofstein & Lazarowitz, 1986; Kempa & Orion, 1989).

The differential perceptions on science learning experience between a group of 383 Form 3 students in two Smart Schools and a group of 381 Form 3 students in two

5 Mainstream Schools were gauged and compared using the validated Smart Science Learning Experience Inventory or SSLEI (Ong & Ruthven, 2003). SSLEI has two versions:

(1) Original 30-item full-scale SSLEI that yielded a high Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.89) and that it measures the overall perceptions of smart science learning experience; and (2) psychometrically revised 24-item SSLEI that comprises eight subscales, namely (1) Information and Communication Technology, (2) Supported Learning, (3) Science Process Skills, (4) Constructivist Practice, (5) Self- Determined Learning, (6) Learning Preference, (7) Active Thinking, and (8) Values Inculcation. These factors explain, reflect and represent the way in which 764 15-year-old students collectively perceived their science learning experience, responding to items originally conceived to represent the theoretical demand of science learning experience. This line of argument is consistent with the findings of Aldridge and Fraser (1997) who acknowledge the occurrence of different interpretation to some of their questionnaire items from the way intended. The indicators for each of the eight subscales are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Subscale Indicators

Subscale Indicator Information and Teacher provides/encourages the use of computer hardware and software Communication programmes in teaching and learning. Technology (ICT) Supported Teacher plays an active and supportive role in ensuring progressive Learning (SP) understanding of scientific concepts. Science Process Teacher provides the learning tasks that involve hypothesizing, planning and/or Skills (SPS) carrying out a science investigative or laboratory-based work. Constructivist Teacher uncovers students’ pre-instructional views, and provides learning Practice (CP) activities to test their earlier views so that students construct an understanding of scientific concepts that mirrors the school science view. Self-Determined Teacher allows the learning of topics that a student wants to, interests in, and Learning (SDL) decides upon within his/her current learning ability. Learning Teacher provides appropriate learning experiences that match students’ Preference (LP) learning styles. Active Thinking Teacher encourages students to explain, justify, and discuss using words, (AT) graphics and symbols within the context of student-student and student-teacher interactions. Values Inculcation Teacher relates current theoretical or practical work to noble values. (VI) * A full discussion of the generation and validation of the 30-item SSLEI and 24-item revised SSLEI is reported in Ong and Ruthven (2003).

In relation to the original 30-item full-scale Smart Science Learning Experience Inventory or SSLEI, the findings from the analyses of students’ self-reports by group, gender, and class level, including the possible interactions among them, using 2 x 2 x 3 (Group x Gender x Class Level) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) are summarised below:

6  The main effect of group was highly significant (F = 122.42, p < .001) and accounted for 14.0% of the total variance in the full-scale SLEI. Students in the Smart Schools perceived their science learning experience more favorably than students in the Mainstream Schools.

 The main effect of gender was not significant (p = .174). There was no significant difference in perceptions towards the science learning experience between male and female students.

 The main effect of class level was significant (F = 5.27, p < .05) and accounted for 1.4% of the total variance in the full-scale SLEI. Students in low-achieving classes rated their science learning experience appreciably higher than did students in average- and high-achieving classes.

 The two-way group x gender interaction was statistically significant (F = 5.32, p < .05). While in the Mainstream Schools, males and females rated their experience at similar levels, in the Smart Schools, females rated their experience appreciably higher than did males.

 The two-way gender x class level interaction was statistically significant (F = 3.58, p < .05). While male ratings were relatively stable across class level, low-achieving females rated their science learning experience appreciably higher than did average- and high-achieving females. (Ong & Ruthven, 2004a)

Meanwhile, the results of three-way 2 x 2 x 3 (group x gender x class level) multivariate analysis of variance performed on the data from students’ self-reports as measured in analyses using a psychometrically revised 24-item SSLEI that comprises eight subscales, namely (1) Information and Communication Technology, (2) Supported Learning, (3) Science Process Skills, (4) Constructivist Practice, (5) Self- Determined Learning, (6) Learning Preference, (7) Active Thinking, and (8) Values Inculcation, are summarised below:

 Broadly, students in the Smart Schools reported a level of science learning experience in terms of ICT, Supported Learning (SL), Science Process Skills (SPS), Constructivist Practice (CP), Self-Determined Learning (SDL), Learning Preference (LP), Active Thinking (AT), and Values Inculcation (VI) which was appreciably higher that did students in the Mainstream Schools.

 There was no significant difference of perceptions between males and females taken as a whole. However, gender did moderate the main group or class level effect as evident in students’ experiences of Constructivist Practice (CP), Supported Learning (SL), and Self-Determined Learning (SDL).

 In relation to the CP experience, the main group effect was moderated by gender where girls in Smart Schools reported a higher level of CP experience than girls in the Mainstream Schools while the male ratings were relatively stable across the groups.

7  The class level effect on SL indicated that average- and high-achieving students reported significantly higher level of SL experience than low- achieving students. However, this class level effect occurred mainly among male students where male students at low class level tended to rate relatively lower than males at high class level.

 In relation to SDL experience, there was neither a straightforward gender nor class level effect. However, there was a significant gender and class level interaction effect. While for the males, there was no significant difference between any of the class levels, for the females, low-achieving girls reported an appreciably higher level of SDL experience than average- and high- achieving girls. (Ong & Ruthven, 2004b)

Implications for Teacher Education While most teacher education programmes incorporate element of micro-teaching as a way of practising (for instance, a certain aspect of pedagogical approach) and getting feedback (say, on one’s performance) for subsequent consolidation and/or improvement, the element of using a systematic enquiry to get students’ feedback is almost unfamiliar among teachers. Fraser (1981) reports how feedback information based on student perceptions can be employed as a basis for reflection upon, discussion of, and systematic attempts to create better schools and classrooms. On that basis, it is then sensible to suggest that in Teacher Education, student teachers should be taught to improve their smart science pedagogical approach through the judicious use of inventory to get feedback based on student perceptions.

When girls in Smart Schools reported a higher level of Constructivist Practice experience than girls in the Mainstream Schools while the male ratings were relatively stable across the groups, this should be a cause for concern, lest the males be further marginalised and disadvantaged in terms of academic achievement with the advent of Smart Schools Initiative. The caution on ‘further marginalisation of boys” should be viewed seriously given the prevalent trend in which girls have consistently outperformed boys in educational achievements (e.g., Wong, Lam, & Ho, 2002). Lending further support, Demie (2001) reports that, “Whatever the pupils’ ethnic origin, girls tend to perform at higher levels than boys at all key stages” (p.91). This has some pedagogical implications for teacher education, particularly in reviewing the prevalently employed and purported “girl-friendly” (or “feminised”) teaching approaches in the science classrooms.

The collective “voices” from low-achieving male students which echo a lack of supported learning experience as compared to their average- and high-achieving peers should be given due attention. While it is commendable to embark on projects that meet the needs of the gifted and most able in science, equal attention (or even more) should be given to low-achieving students in supporting their science learning. It is hypothesized that more individualised teacher-supported ICT-based learning will be needed in order to raise academic performance of the low-achieving students. Accordingly, pedagogical approaches that specifically cater to the needs of bottom set or low-achieving students should be in place in any teacher education programme.

8 Conclusion It is laudable for the Ministry of Education to be forward-looking in rolling out the Smart Schools Initiative -- a curriculum innovation or change, if you like, that contends to reinvent the teaching and learning practices as well as the school management in a systematic fashion so as to prepare the Malaysian children for the Information Age. However, a concerted effort from all divisions in the Malaysian Ministry of Education, ranging from the Curriculum Development Centre, the Textbooks Division, Teacher Training Division, Educational Technology Division, to The Inspectorate of Schools, is crucial and significant in ensuring that such curriculum innovation is worthy of its implementation so as to enhance pupil progress, achievement and development across gender, ethnicity, social economic status, and academic ability. Given the marked favourable experiences amongst the girls and that the boys are somewhat marginalised, particularly those from the the bottom set, there are implications for the science teacher education in addresing these gender and ability related problems. Therefore, with some fine tuning and tightening work on the nuts and bolts for gender and ability, the curriculum innovation from the Smart Schools Inititative will categorically help address sustainability.

9 References

Aldridge, J.M., & Fraser, B.J. (1997). Examining science classroom environments in a cross-national study. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 1997. (Retrieved August 14, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://education.curtin.edu.au/waier/forums/1997/aldridge.html)

Costa, A. (1991). The school as a home for the mind. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.

Demie, F. (2001). Ethnic and gender differences in educational achievement and implications for school improvement strategies. Educational Research, 43(1), 91–106.

Fisher, D.L. (Ed.). (1994). The study of learning environments, Volume 6. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Fraser, B.J. (1981). Learning environment in curriculum evaluation: A review. Evaluation in Education: An International Review Series, 5(1), 3-93.

Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.

Gan, S.L. (2000). IT and education in Malaysia: Problems, issues and challenges. KL: Longman.

Hofstein, A., & Lazarowitz, R. (1986). A comparison of the actual and preferred classroom learning environment in biology and chemistry as perceived by high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 189-199.

Kempa, R.F., & Orion, N. (1996). Students' perception of co-operative learning in earth science fieldwork. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14(1), 33- 41.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1997). Education in Malaysia. KL: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Mohamad, Mahathir. (1991). Malaysia: The Way Forward. Kuala Lumpur: Centre for Economic Research & Service, Malaysian Business Council. [This is the text of working paper presented by YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the inaugural meething of the Malaysian Business Council held in Kuala Lumpuer on February 28, 1991]

Mohamed, Mahathir. (1993). Malaysia: The Way Forward, Vision 2020: Understanding the concepts, implications, and challenges. Selangor: Pelanduk Publication.

10 Ong, E.T. (2004). The character of the character of ‘smart science teaching’ in Malaysian schools and its effects on student attitudes, process skills, and achievement. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.

Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2003). Validity and Reliability of Smart Science Learning Experience Inventory (SSLEI). Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 26(2), 76–106.

Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2004a). The perceptions on science learning experience of Malaysian students in Smart and Mainstream schools. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 21-35.

Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2004b). Investigating the smart science learning experience amongst Malaysian students. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 27(1), 87-116.

Paul, R.W. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Centre for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.

Perkins, D.N. (1995). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.

Ramsden, P. (1997). Student learning and perceptions of academic environment. Higher Education, 8, 411-27.

Smart School Project Team. (1997a). Smart School flagship application: The Malaysian Smart School – A conceptual blueprint. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Smart School Project Team. (1997b). The Malaysian Smart School: Implementation plan. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing Our Schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.

UNESCO. (2005). Draft International Implementation Strategy for the DESD. (Retrieved August 10, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001403/140372e.pdf)

Wong, K.C., Lam, Y. R., & L.M. Ho. (2002). The effects of schooling on gender differences. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 827-843.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.