admin, Author at TIESEA

PPT presentations of the “Expert Forum – opportunities and risks for EdTech in Southeast Asia”, 11 October 2022, BETT Asia, Bangkok

Tuesday, 11 October 2022 by admin

Technology has played a key part in maintaining the continuity of education in region during the past two years of disruption’ some solutions and tech intervention has been more successful than others. The TIESEA project team have conducted diagnostic assessments and analyses in each of the four project countries of: Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Viet Nam. On the basis of the reports from these analyses the project is currently implementing pilot studies in each country focusing on local needs and capacity building.

The pilot studies will have been completed by October 2023, and the team hopes to be able to report the findings at BETT Asia 2023.

Session Objectives:

Many of the issues related to successful EdTech interventions in the region center upon local capacity: both in terms of the skills and eReadiness of teachers and learners, and in relation to access to both devices and quality digital resources.

The reports from the four project partner countries will be shared and general conclusions reached
The session will outline the local situation, country by country, and seek to demonstrate how the project interventions can overcome obstacles in order to maximise the contribution that EdTech can make to both students’ achievement and the quality of learning in the region.
An expert panel, comprising of leading industry experts, senior government leaders and TIESEA project staff will share their views and experiences and seek to generate some universal truths that underpin successful EdTech interventions globally.

Seminar Presentations:

Country Briefs – TIESEA Team

Cambodia Vision of EdTech

Indonesia Vision of EdTech

AWS Presentation by Vatsun Thirapatarapong

ELSA Presentation by Michael Ngo

KOOMPI Presentation by Rithy Thul

Microsoft Presentation by Vincent Quah

Published in Workshops

No Comments

TIESEA webinar at BETT Asia

Wednesday, 05 October 2022 by admin

After a gap of two years, we are delighted to be presenting the TIESEA project at BETT Asia in Bangkok, Thailand on 11^th October 2022.

Technology has played a key part in maintaining the continuity of education in region: during the past two years of disruption’ some solutions and tech intervention has been more successful than others. The TIESEA project team have conducted diagnostic assessments and analyses in each of the four project countries of: Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam. On the basis of the reports from these analyses, the project is currently implementing pilot studies in each country focusing on local needs and capacity building.

The webinar will outline the local situation, country by country, and seek to demonstrate how the project interventions can overcome obstacles in order to maximise the contribution that EdTech can make to both students’ achievement and the quality of learning in the region. There will also be leading industry experts and senior government leaders to share their experiences.

If you would like to attend, please contact us at [email protected]

For more information on the TIESEA project, view the brochure here.

Published in All Reports, Articles

No Comments

STEM and Education Technology in Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan

Wednesday, 31 August 2022 by admin

This publication focuses on the state of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and education technology (EdTech) in four developing member countries (DMCs) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB): Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan. It presents studies conducted from May 2020 to May 2021, along with situation analysis reports on EdTech and describes the state of information and communication technology (ICT) in the general education subsectors (primary and secondary) of the four DMCs. It discusses findings from the country studies, identifies gaps and potential intervention areas, and provides policy and intervention recommendations.

STEM Education

Findings from a survey of STEM teachers yielded a wealth of data on 11 subscales:

(i) syllabus in teaching

(ii) assessment

(iii) textbooks

(iv) preservice teacher training program

(v) inclusion of ICT

(vi) students’ interest

(vii) professional development programs

(viii) pedagogy

(ix) project work

(x) innovations in education and laboratory

(xi) design and technology workshops

Based on the survey samples, perception ratings by the teachers on the state of STEM education in their schools and countries are not high. In addition, further findings were gathered from the qualitative responses of teachers to four open-ended questions:

(i) three aspects that teachers are already good at

(ii) three challenges they face in teaching STEM in school

(iii) two improvements that schools can make to improve teaching and learning in their STEM subjects

(iv) one way in which the country can become strong in STEM education

A survey of school leaders also yielded a wealth of data on five subscales:

(i) school leadership

(ii) school improvement

(iii) relationship with national education authorities

(iv) relationships with other stakeholders

(v) professional development of teachers

Perception ratings by school leaders on the effectiveness of education in their schools and countries are not high. The qualitative responses of school leaders to four open-ended questions also highlighted further findings. The questions focused on the following:

(i) three things that are working well in schools

(ii) three challenges faced by schools

(iii) two improvements schools can make to improve teaching and learning

(iv) one way in which countries can become strong in education

Examination of internet resources as well as confirmatory discussions with stakeholders indicate the absence of science centers set up in the classical manner. Also absent are nongovernment organization (NGO)-based scientific academies and scientific societies in the four DMCs. This shows a big gap as well as an opportunity to identify and develop complementary resources that could effectively contribute to institutionalizing STEM education through a network of critical stakeholders in the DMCs, as done by other successful countries.

A comparison of STEM education in the four DMCs with Finland and Singapore shows that there are several areas for improvement, mainly in relation to preservice teacher education, teacher professional development, STEM education practices, the presence of external providers of STEM education, the establishment of a high bandwidth access to internet in schools, and the promotion of research activity levels of teacher education institutes.

In light of the findings, suggestions to improve the state of STEM education in the four DMC include the following:

(i) Improve students’ interest levels in science and mathematics.

(ii) Ensure that STEM teachers attend regular in-service courses as part of their professional

development and enhance latest developments on STEM education.

(iii) Improve preservice and in-service teacher education in STEM subjects to enhance

pedagogical practices that contribute to improvement in student learning outcomes.

(iv) Further develop the research expertise of academic staff at teacher education institutes.

(v) Establish science centers to popularize STEM.

(vi) Form NGO-based scientific societies to further boost activity levels of STEM education.

(vii) Promote integrated STEM education initiatives through low-cost initiatives.

(viii) Significantly increase the internet bandwidth in schools.

Given ADB’s recognition of STEM education in improving pedagogical practices and learning outcomes, particularly of girls and disadvantaged and marginalized students, some suggestions for further work are also provided. Most of these relate to organizing workshops in relation to the proposed suggestions for improving the state of STEM education in the four DMCs, organizing various courses for preservice teacher educators and other trainers of STEM subjects, forming local committees with ADB representatives to oversee the implementation of some recommendations, and establishing and strengthening knowledge partnerships with centers of excellence with proven expertise in STEM education, and providing some seed funding to jump-start the suggested initiatives.

The two surveys on STEM teachers’ views about STEM and school leaders’ views of the education system have good psychometric validity and reliability. As a next step, these can be used to map the state of STEM education in other DMCs, with some fine-tuning in phrasing to suit local contexts.

EdTech

With the pervasive adoption and usage of ICT in every sphere of life, mastery of those technologies becomes a fundamental requirement for work in the 21st century. Technologies in education systems or so-called “education technologies” (EdTechs) are providing new opportunities for students, teachers, education officers, and families to enhance learning and equity-at-scale by creating engaging, inclusive, and individualized learning experiences.

ADB commissioned the studies on Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Uzbekistan to gain insights on the current state of EdTech in the general education sector and how it is adapted and used in facilitating the learning outcomes and 21st century employability skills. The studies aimed to fill gaps in knowledge (including the early developments associated with the coronavirus disease [COVID-19] pandemic) as well as map the existing body of knowledge to inform ADB’s five-pillar assessment framework. The studies are also geared toward developing methodologies for collecting information on the digital learning readiness of DMCs.

The five domains and dimensions of the research framework are the following:

(i) Infrastructure. The situation related to the state of the ICT infrastructure in the country, including its quality and accessibility to students. Four key components are evaluated: internet connectivity, devices, power networks, and broadcasting.

(ii) Government. The situation related to enabling legislation and government policies and actions (laws, policies, funding, plans, strategy, and road maps) to support the role of EdTech in enhancing education outcomes. It specifically looks at the following four areas: policies and funding, curriculum, education performance measurement, and preservice training.

(iii) Schools and teachers. The situation related to the capacity of schoolteachers and school administrators. The key areas studied are teacher capacity in EdTech; in-service training; equipment and software in schools; and governance (school policies, budget, monitoring for quality learning outcomes).

(iv) Parents and students. The quality of home or community environment in terms of facilitating or enabling the achievement of student learning outcomes. These include digital literacy of students, connectivity and devices at home, online access to curriculum content, digital skills, and community support.

(v) Providers. The insight is about the quality of EdTech systems and providers and education sector partnerships. It includes a review of learning management, e-learning systems, online content, integrators, developers, and sponsors.

The most important finding was the need for shifting to a technology-inclusive ecosystem approach that would enable EdTech to transform education, away from the piecemeal and siloed approach seen in many DMCs. EdTech is not about simply replacing the current face-to-face mode of teaching and learning. It is about digitizing teaching, learning, and administrative processes while promoting adaptive or personalized learning through a collaborative process that combines the power of technology (data and evidence), with creative pedagogical practices that support learning and equity at scale.

It is paramount for educationists to cross boundaries and interact with a variety of stakeholders because success in EdTech delivery depends on understanding and implementing beyond the normal capacity of one government agency. EdTech requires new ways of envisioning education systems and enabling interaction between students and teachers, and curricula must be adjusted as content, delivery style, and organization also transform.

Read the full article here.

Published in Related Content

No Comments

“Tech-Inclusive Education: A World-Class System for Every Child” A discussion paper from the Institute for Global Change

Tuesday, 30 August 2022 by admin

“Tech-Inclusive Education: A World-Class System for Every Child”

A discussion paper from the Institute for Global Change[1]

Dr Philip Uys, KE3

29 August 2022

Summary Blog from Dr Philip Uys, EdTech Specialist, TIESEA project

During Covid-19 all manner of technology was deployed to keep children learning. There is a need to create places for more than 270 million more school pupils a year by 2030 – the largest expansion of school education in history. The scale of the challenge demands an immediate step change in how we think about the role of technology in education – Technology holds the promise of overcoming these fundamental challenges – a promise that so far remains unfulfilled.

The Report’s state the goals of an effective edtech approach as:

To give every child access to a world-class education system, we must move on from the debate between “tech-driven” or “tech-assisted” approaches and become “tech-inclusive.

A world-class education system for every child should ensure that all school-age children achieve at least minimum proficiency levels in core subjects, and address quality gaps faced by disadvantaged, disabled or otherwise discriminated-against students.

What are indicated that do not work:

the OECD found no direct link between class size and student performance
technology is seen as a way to replace educators or dramatically reduce their role, and the future of education is primarily or entirely digital. At best, this allows for reductions in the cost of large-scale delivery with a significant negative impact on the quality of learning. During Covid 19 we saw the failure of technology when running up against the constraints of connectivity and device access, lack of physical space for learning and the need to develop digital skills
The alternative, which has gained much ground recently, might be called “tech-assisted”. The argument here is that technology is at its best when it enhances what teachers already do, supporting tried-and-tested pedagogical methods or saving time. Insights from interactive platforms can also inform a more personalised approach to teaching. Digital platforms can help scale “teaching at the right level” programmes, which rely on an initial assessment as well as on ongoing tests to assign students content and activities that are most relevant to their level of knowledge. However, tech-assisted education must, by definition, fit within the constraints of existing approaches and is therefore limited in its ability to resolve the crisis trilemma. During Covid 19 we also saw that moving traditional ways of teaching online without adapting them to this new digital context resulted in subpar learning experiences
improving access to hardware alone does not improve test scores.

Edtechs and initiatives highlighted in the Report are: Kahoot!, Nearpod, Mindspark, Oak National Academy, Sparx Maths, Eneza Education, Rising Academy Network, onebillion, Kolibri, Generation Global, UNICEF’s Learning Passport.

This report proposes a new way of thinking about reform: the “minimum viable education system” framework in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 4 to realise inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Governments should aim to reach the baseline level across each dimension first, because the fundamental reason for the education crisis is that these three policy goals are in tension with each other, and the current design of school systems is not equal to resolving these tensions:

Designing and delivering high-quality education that meets the learning needs of children and supports future economic growth.
Meeting the logistical and systems-design challenges of providing equal access to education for all children.
Funding the education system at a public cost that is sustainable in the long term.

Their framework lays out what a minimum acceptable level of quality looks like across each dimension in any given context.

Systems’ starting points will differ. To account for these differences, the “minimum viable education system” framework defines three tiers, each building on the next. It can serve as both a benchmarking tool and a guide to strategic development. It is summarised (with more detail provided in the report for the system; infrastructure; teachers; learners; parents and carers) as:

Tier 1is characterised by a focus on getting the basics right. Previous researchhas found that poorly performing systems that improve most rapidly are characterised by higher levels of centralisation, wider use of direct instruction and scaffolding for low-skilled teachers, and a focus on fundamentals of numeracy and literacy. To make the most of technology, systems at this tier must also provide meaningful connectivity and a basic level of access to devices, which may require significant early investment. Achieving performance at this tier would represent a significant improvement for most low- and lower-middle-income countries, where only a few schools might currently meet it, while upper-middle-income countries would often perform at or near this level.
Tier 2 is characterised by growing levels of school autonomy and a focus on continuous improvement of the quality of the teacher workforce. Other aspects include stronger accountability, including to parents, and increasing attention to non-academic elements of schooling such as careers education or extracurricular activities. Many high-income countries will operate at this tier already, although some may need to ensure performance is equal across the entire system.
Tier 3represents a self-improving system where schools go above and beyond their role as teaching institutions, providing support in the community and supporting the development of pupils as citizens as well as learners. Within such a system there is now sufficient capacity for far-reaching reforms and effective experimentation with technology as well as new pedagogies such as dialogue educationat the national scale, without neglecting the foundations of good learning. Very few, if any, of the leading school systems will be operating at this level today, although many of the best schools in high-income countries do this to some extent.

Advantages of the MVES approach: The value of a minimum viable education system is twofold. First, its implementation at the right tier improves resilience and levels up standards across the system, minimising inequities in access to quality education. Second, it creates the conditions for radical, tech-inclusive reforms within the system by ensuring that all schools, rather than just a few, have the infrastructure, skills and support necessary to use technology effectively.

Use of the MVES approach: Governments in low-income countries can use the MVES approach to assess whether their strategic development plans would assist with reaching Tier 1 and whether resources are allocated appropriately between the different dimensions. International donors can also adopt the framework to evaluate whether the focus of sponsored projects (for example, school-construction efforts or careers education) would support grantee countries in reaching the appropriate minimum viable tier. For governments in high-income settings, the framework can address inequality by helping to identify both gaps in the system that require “levelling up” and areas of overinvestment. It can also inform plans for future reform.

In line with the Framework policymakers – within an iterative mindset:

In the short term (one to two years), international organisations such as UNESCO should address existing gaps in access to education by funding and building a remote World Education Service (WES), free at the point of delivery and accessible to all through the internet as well as low-tech channels like feature phones.

In the medium term (three to seven years), national governments should build capacity for the effective use of technology through strategic investment in “minimum viable education systems”, with a holistic approach to the elements of school systems that affect the rate of adoption and the impact of education technology.

In the long term (five to ten years), national governments should pilot and scale up radical reforms that maximise the potential of technology to deliver quality education at scale and at sustainable cost, such as:.

Introduce a lifelong digital learner ID, issued at the start of compulsory education, that gives students control over their data, improves accountability for schools and edtech providers, and builds a comprehensive picture of a child’s learning.Next Steps

Governments should look at adapting existing digital-ID infrastructure (or projects in development) to the “learner record” use case and seek consultation on issuing digital IDs at an earlier age than is usual today.
Edtech providers should commit to making their systems interoperable with national digital learner IDs, and collaborate with governments, educators and learners on the development of a shared schema to allow cross-border integrations.

Reorganise classrooms into cohorts and transform teaching career paths, providing students with access to varied learning activities and in-person support, and allowing trainee teachers to draw on the subject knowledge of more experienced colleagues as they work in teams to deliver a mix of small-group tuition and high-quality digital learning for larger groups.

Next Steps

Governments should run pilots with larger cohorts accompanied by teaching teams in select schools and at different age groups (primary, lower secondary, upper secondary) to assess impact and inform initial teacher-training reforms. Inspection regimes should be adapted to allow for such experimentation, and ensure its impact on learner experiences and outcomes is consistently captured.
For this scenario to be cost effective, it must be delivered at large scale, requiring significant investment in school infrastructure (electricity, connectivity and device availability). Governments should closely engage with existing initiatives such as Giga and accelerate their journeys towards universal internet access.

Break the link between geography and educational opportunities and expand choice for pupils and parents by putting in place infrastructure and regulation for “in-person remote” schooling. Remote learning hubs can complement remote school places by providing supervision from trained and vetted staff, peer socialisation and a suitable working environment.

Next Steps

Governments should consider the implications of increasing the availability of remote, school-delivered learning on existing funding formulas, and design more flexible and transferable models.
School-inspection bodies should be adapted in response to the wider availability of remote online schooling, creating mechanisms for “digital inspection” and putting clear quality-assurance frameworks and accountability measures in place (including cybersecurity requirements).

[1] Institute for Global Change (2021 Dec 07). https://institute.global/policy/tech-inclusive-education-world-class-system-every-child

Published in Blog

No Comments

Learning loss, School Recovery and the Education Futures

Thursday, 04 August 2022 by admin

As part of its regular online briefings the ADB, in July, published How to Recover Learning Losses from COVID-19 School Closures in Asia and the Pacific[1], the paper makes a strong case for an approach to learning recovery that involves wholescale organisational change, not simply grafting on remedial measures to the existing broken systems – the recommendations embrace the use of technology, but they also point to the need for significant reorientations in curriculum design and a modernization in the way teachers operate.

Across the globe the Covid-related school closures since 2020 resulted in 170 million, or more students having no access to regular learning opportunities, with the consequential huge losses in learning. Across SE Asia, students’ school attendance was only around 80% of normal, between the first quarter of 2020 and the last quarter of 2021 resulting in the chances of meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals for education slipping further away. Research by the Centre for Global Development[2] has shown how the learning losses associated with school closures have disproportionately affected the poorest and most socially disadvantages children.

The school closures served to reinforce the need to create alternatives to conventional models of schooling that consist of a teacher is in direct control of the learning of many students – often 50 or more, in a custodial classroom. Educational Technology (EdTech) has its part to play, but as we have seen, access to digital resources and the devices to use these resources is unevenly spread. Mass broadcast technologies, such as radio and TV, were used by many education ministries in SE Asia to promote remote learning, but these were often used to little effect as students lacked the learning skills to be able to drive their own learning and most teachers were unable to move away from their regular mode of transmissive delivery in lecture style. Nonetheless, there are a few examples of EdTech being used creatively to promote new learning. In Cambodia, students have benefited from hand-held tablet devices with access to digital resources to enhance their learning and understanding of the STEM subjects.

Whilst there have been some undoubted successes in using technology to overcome learning losses, in general, many teachers in the SE Asia region have struggled to integrate EdTech into their normal professional practice. It is not just a matter of low levels of digital literacy amongst the teaching workforce, more important in the shift to more learner-centric modes of education, which do not involve teachers directing learning at all times.

Encouraging students’ understanding about their own learning – so-called ‘metacognition’, and being able to drive and motivate themselves to make progress, is the single most influential and cost-effective means to raise standards. Empirical research by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF)[1] in the UK in 2018 proved this most conclusively.

So, professional development, along with a reprioritization of the curriculum and enhanced integration have to be taken all together in a combined way to have the desired impact on school recovery. The ADB paper summarizes the steps to school recovery as follows:

A key first step after schools safely reopen is to test students to determine how much knowledge was lost or forgone and at what level to restart instruction, after which attention should focus on regularly tracking the progress of learning.
Teaching based on the student’s level, with the help of teaching assistants, tutors, or education technology (edtech), is crucial for learning recovery, as it has proven effective in improving learning outcomes.
Prioritizing foundational skills, extending instruction time, and encouraging the re-enrollment of dropouts are also important for learning recovery.
Quality in-service teacher training is needed to support changes in pedagogy.

The TIESEA project in its interventions in Cambodia, Indonesia, The Philippines and Viet Nam is following these steps in order to determine ‘what works in EdTech in SE Asia’. All of the country pilot projects have teacher professional development, and curriculum reform at the very center of the work – EdTech is then used as a tool to facilitate and promote the changes.

TIESEA will be feeding back the major findings at an international conference in the region in September 2023: watch this space, and follow these blogs for further updates!

[1] https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/808471/adb-brief-217-learning-losses-covid-19-school-closures.pdf

[2] Moscoviz, L. and D. K. Evans. 2022. Learning Loss and Student Dropouts During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of the Evidence Two Years after Schools Shut Down. CGD Working Paper. No. 609. March. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

[3] https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Toolkit/complete/EEF-Teaching-Learning-Toolkit-October-2018.pdf

Published in Blog, Related Content

No Comments

Related dynamic, global links about successful use of EDTECH

Saturday, 30 July 2022 by admin

EdTech has been used successfully in developing settings. This require though targeted strategies that are contextualised for the capabilities and limitations of the context in which these are deployed, and aligned to the affordances of the particular Ed Techs in question.

Below are as set of dynamic, global links related to this Project about the successful use of EdTech that can be explored. These websites were included as being global, dynamic and thus changes frequently. These sites list publications, papers, articles, reports, presentations and other resources; events like webinars, conferences and forums; blogs; newsletters; working papers; current themes; people and projects to connect with; statistics and analytics; and success stories and challenges.

Leader of the Institute received the delegation of experts of the project “Technology-based innovation in education in Southeast Asia”

Thursday, 14 July 2022 by admin

On the afternoon of June 20, 2022, at Meeting Room A13, Headquarter 101 Tran Hung Dao, Vietnam Institute of Educational Sciences had a talk with the expert delegation of the project “Technology-based innovation in education in East Asia”. South Asia” (kjTechnology-Enabled Innovation in Education in Southeast Asia), referred to as TIESEA for short.

Attending the meeting, on the side of TIESEA Project, there were Dr. Michael Lightfoot – Project Team Leader, with international experts – Dr. Deborah Wyburn, Dr. John Tim Deny, and Mrs. Nguyen Hong Hanh. On the side of the Vietnam Institute of Educational Sciences, there were Prof. Dr. Le Anh Vinh and leaders of the Department of Science Management, Training and International Cooperation.

Read the full article here.