In Thailand, principals hold a higher degree of power within the school both
culturally and institutionally than in many Western nations. Without the principal’s
support, curricular or instructional change is unlikely to happen. Moreover, as
suggested above, the IPM curriculum requires changes in the teaching schedule,
students’ and teachers’ behaviors, location of learning, the role and personage of the
teachers. Many of these changes could not be made with support from the principal.
Notably, there were a few instances of successful implementation where the
principal’s support was more passive. In these cases, successful implementation of the
IPM program was possible if the school had a group of innovative teachers interested
in instructional reform.
For example, in the early stages of dissemination, there was a group of
teachers who attended the Training of Trainers workshop on IPM curriculum
organized by the TEF. When they returned to their schools, they tried out the
curriculum and provided support to each other. Once the IPM curriculum was adopted
by their schools as the school local curriculum, they volunteered to train their peers.
However, this type of successful implementation without support from the principal
tended to be the exception rather than the rule.
Change from the Outside-In
Interviews with participating teachers and principals suggested that “outsidein”
support was critical at several stages in the IPM program’s development and
dissemination. First, the TEF played an important role in working with the teacher,
Mr. Manas, to identify and adapt the first prototype of the IPM curriculum for primary
In Thailand, principals hold a higher degree of power within the school bothculturally and institutionally than in many Western nations. Without the principal’ssupport, curricular or instructional change is unlikely to happen. Moreover, assuggested above, the IPM curriculum requires changes in the teaching schedule,students’ and teachers’ behaviors, location of learning, the role and personage of theteachers. Many of these changes could not be made with support from the principal.Notably, there were a few instances of successful implementation where theprincipal’s support was more passive. In these cases, successful implementation of theIPM program was possible if the school had a group of innovative teachers interestedin instructional reform.For example, in the early stages of dissemination, there was a group ofteachers who attended the Training of Trainers workshop on IPM curriculumorganized by the TEF. When they returned to their schools, they tried out thecurriculum and provided support to each other. Once the IPM curriculum was adoptedby their schools as the school local curriculum, they volunteered to train their peers.However, this type of successful implementation without support from the principaltended to be the exception rather than the rule.Change from the Outside-InInterviews with participating teachers and principals suggested that “outsidein”support was critical at several stages in the IPM program’s development anddissemination. First, the TEF played an important role in working with the teacher,
Mr. Manas, to identify and adapt the first prototype of the IPM curriculum for primary
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..