Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
smart school challenges and progress
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

smart school challenges and progress

  • 175 views
Published

 

Published in Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
175
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SMART SCHOOL CHALLENGES
  • 2. Heavy investment on facilities  Government need to spend a lot for electronic facilities and new books.  The cost and maintenance fees for the facilities are high.  Effective implementation of Smart Schools will require:  funding for the building of new schools with its entire multimedia infrastructure  upgrading facilities in existing schools  teacher training institutions  maintenance of new technology
  • 3. Lack of democratization in education  Students have no choice on what to learn and when to sit for exam.  They don’t have enough time to study and understand the lesson as they have different ability to learn. Lack of manpower in handling the technical problem  Insufficient technicians.
  • 4. Lack of technological infrastructure and teaching materials in school in rural area  Limited internet connection  Limitation of infrastructure, such as computer labs lead to ineffectiveness of technology supported teaching and learning.  Shortage of computers.
  • 5. Smart school hardware, software and courseware was found to be under-utilized Some teachers are not keen on using the courseware  lack of ICT knowledge  not comfortable with the use of hardware and courseware.  prefer traditional way of teaching which is chalk and talk  a waste of time.
  • 6.  The design of the courseware does not accommodate for students’ with differing needs and learning abilities.  Courseware lacks proper guidelines to use.  Software used in school and MOE is causing problem:  to key in data  cannot be used by school’s computer  the processor takes a longer time and slow.  the hardware is out of date  lack of knowledge can cause damage to computer
  • 7. Lack of trainings  Some teachers cannot teach effectively.  New teachers lack intensive training.  Experienced teachers lack of ICT knowledge. Time constraint Students felt that learning using computer is very time consuming. Teachers have to prepare earlier if they want to use the computer lab for teaching and it will disturb the process of teaching and learning.
  • 8. Students  Students nowadays are passive.  They hope every material is provided by their teacher. Don’t disturb me !!! Parents  Parents are not involved in this project.  Busy with their work so that they can upgrade their life and provide the better environment to their children.
  • 9. Negative attitude of teachers  A teacher (especially senior teachers) has been blended with traditional methods and difficult to adapt new instructional technology. Staff development program (courses) Did not involve every staff.
  • 10. SMART SCHOOL PROGRESS
  • 11. General academic performance  Academic performance of Malaysian students improved across all national examinations in 2009 in core subjects – Language, Mathematics and Science  Primary School scores increased by 11.4%, Lower Secondary scores by 6.4% and Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) scores by 3.4%
  • 12. Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS)  a monitoring tool to measure the use of ICT in schools  schools are given Star Ranking each year based on their performance in four areas: use of ICT competency of end-users (students, teachers, administrators) adoption of applications provided by MOE (modules and courseware) IT infrastructure
  • 13. Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS)  As of October 2009, MOE has awarded ‘Smart School’ rating to 7575 schools. This means they have achieved at least 3 stars  Dr Norrizan Razali, Senior Manager, Smart School Department, MDec explains the Star Rankings: “A three-star school has adopted technology. Its teachers ‘plug and play’ content or electronic courseware provided by MOE. It merely adopts ICT with little or no enhancement or customization of the material to suit its needs”.  Of the 7575 Smart Schools, 67% are at 3-star ranking, 32% at 4-star and 1% at 5-star
  • 14. Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS)
  • 15. References  Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  Borko, H., Elliot, R. & Uchiyama, K. (2002). Professional development: A key to Kentucky's educational reform effort. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 969-987.  Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23-27.  Frost & Sullivan (2004). Benchmarking of the Smart School integrated solution. Multimedia Development Corporation and Ministry of Education, Malaysia. [verified 9 May 2010; 1.7 MB] http://www.mscmalaysia.my/codenavia/portals/msc/images/pdf/ssbenchmarking.pdf  Frost, & Sullivan. (2006). Impact assessment studies on the Smart School Integrated Solution ( SSIS ) and other ICT initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.mscmalaysia.my/sites/default/files/pdf/publications_references/ImpactStudy.pdf  Hajar Mohd. Nor (2005). Conditions facilitating the implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) integration in the Malaysia Smart Schools. Unpublished PhD, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor.   Making Malaysia’s schools smarter. (2010). (pp. 42–46). Retrieved from http://www.mscmalaysia.my/sites/default/files/pdf/publications_references/FutureGov_February_2010.pdf  Mokhtar Hj. Nawawi, Ahmad Fauzi M. Ayub, Wan Zah W. Ali, Aida Suraya M. Yunus & Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi (2005). Teachers’ perceptions on the conditions facilitating the use of computers in teaching mathematics. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 2(3), 88-98. [verified 9 May 2010] http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/Dec05/11%20-%20MATHEMATICS_TEACHERS__PERCEPTIONS-f.pdf  Sham Ibrahim (2003). The use of multimedia software in instruction among secondary school teachers in the district of Jelebu, Negeri Sembilan. Unpublished MA Thesis. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.  Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS). (2009). Retrieved from http://www.mscmalaysia.my/sites/default/files/pdf/publications_references/SSQSNov2009BB.pdf