Exploring the Culture Gap between ... - Khon Kaen University

Paper Number: ICHUSO-030

Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)

22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

Exploring the Culture Gap between Western Student Centered Learning and

Traditional Thai Education

Jesse Sessoms

Educational Leadership, Faculty of Human Sciences, Assumption University, Thailand

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Via the National Education Act (NEA) of 1999, student centered learning was made a

key pillar of Thailand’s education reform; however, in this matter progress remains to be made. It

is theorized that one factor affecting Thai teachers’ implementation of the new method is an

underlying gap in values between traditional Thai pedagogy and student centered learning, which

originated in the West. This educational change is not only pedagogical, but also cultural. If a

successful transition from the old to the new approach is to occur this cultural change should be

explicitly addressed. The aims of this paper are to first explore values implicit to the student

centered and the traditional Thai learning models, then to discuss the implications of those

differences. Finally, ways to address the culture gap between the two educational approaches are

proposed. In order to fully situate itself within the Thai context for its discussion of Thai culture

and traditional teaching pedagogy, this paper utilizes as much as possible Thai scholarly research.

Keywords: East-West cultural differences, professional development, student centered learning,

Thai education, traditional instruction, Southeast Asian perspective

66




It is evident that, driven by such factors as globalization, scientific and technological innovation,

social media, A.I., robotics and the Internet of Things (IoT), in the 21st century education, society

and business have changed from previous eras, and will continue to do so. The latest generation of

students, the millenials, is unprecedented for having been born into a technological society;

technology has been integrated into their daily lives since birth. They are digital natives. This new

group of learners demand a more collaborative approach to, and more proactive role in, their

education (Flynn & Vredevoogd, 2010; Seritanondh, 2013). Now of paramount importance are

critical thinking, problem solving, conflict negotiation, higher-order thinking and collaborative

skills (Becker & Maunsaiyat, 2004). Students should gain skillsets and competencies, be adaptive

to change and able to step beyond their comfort zones (Anunthavorasakul, 2018).

There is thus a global shift in education to focus upon student collaboration, development of

interpersonal skills, experience-based learning, and to be student centered, in which students direct

their own learning (Flynn & Vredevoogd, 2010). Student centered learning has become a main

value of the modern classroom.

Moving to keep pace with this shift, the Thai government made student-centered learning a

fundamental component of Thai education through the 1999 National Education Act (NEA, 1999)

(National Qualifications Framework for Thailand: Implementations Handbook, 2006; Kirtikara,

2001; Phungphol, 2005). Following this reform, thousands of Thai teachers have already been

retrained and still many more are awaiting to be retrained to use the new student centered ideology

(Phungphol, 2005). However, in spite of reform efforts made in teacher professional development,

revision of curricula and principal leadership, two decades on Thai education remains

predominantly hierarchical and teacher centered (Jivaketu, 2015). An overlooked factor

contributing to this stems from differences in values between traditional Thai instruction and

Western originated student centered learning as the values of the two educational approaches do

not always dovetail. The present paper explores this cultural gap. First, it comparatively examines

the most pertinent values and value differences; following this, it examines the shift to student

centered learning as a change process. Suggestions are made for ways to cope and to have

leadership through this change, at both the individual and institutional levels. Because teachers are

at the frontline of the educational endeavor, hence teacher training is a critical aspect of educational

reform, this paper focuses on Thai teacher training programs, which, for the purposes of the present

paper, encompass both pre-service programs as well as professional development training.

This knowledge increases understanding of the extant situation in Thai education. Moreover, while

student centered learning is a much researched topic in Thai indigenous literature in English, there

is little specifically addressing the cross-cultural aspect; therefore, this paper expressly situates this

ongoing discussion within the Thai cultural context. Finally, it must be borne in mind that an issue

of cultural imperialism arises for the emphasis on student centered learning tacitly pressures

traditional Thai culture to change its values.

Values of Traditional Thai Instruction and Student Centered Learning

Applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theoretical framework (1991), Thai culture is one of high

power distance, with a strong social hierarchy (Komin, 1990). Thai culture is hierarchical.

Hierarchy begins in the Thai home, with its vertical family structure, in which power is

concentrated in the male father figure. Beginning with their familial experience Thais learn from

earliest childhood “to show appropriate respect to parents, siblings, relatives, teachers, monks, and

67




others. Children readily learn to accept their social place in the societal hierarchy, and are . . . taught

to respect all people in authority” (Pinyuchon & Gray, 1997, Pinyuchon & House, 1998). Along

this line, traditional Thai education is hierarchical and reflects Thai culture. Power is centered in

the teacher, who is the manager, and whose authority is derived from their position, and the students

are subordinates, who, being in a lesser position, are required to obey and follow the manager

(Gallagher, 1993, as referred to by Becker & Maunsaiyat, 2004, Phungphol, 2005, ). Traditional

instruction (also referred to as hierarchical leadership) is founded on behaviorism, its main methods

are didactic discourse and direct instruction, and teachers are the dispensers of information, which

they control and transmit as needed to the students, who are passive receivers of this information,

and whose task is to memorize (Gallagher, 1993, as referred to by Becker & Maunsaiyat, 2004,

Smith & Piele, 2006, Wiriyachitra, 2002). Phungphol (2005) states that in traditional Thai

education “teachers are experts in what they are teaching and the students are [. . .] novices or

empty vessels” (2005).

In opposition to this are the democratic, egalitarian values underlying modern, millennial,

students’ predisposition toward a collegial, social mode of learning. Student centered learning is a

humanistic approach, centered on cognitivist-constructivist principles that believes the growth of

the student is the ideal of education, that teachers are facilitators of students’ growth, that students’

differences are important and must be accounted for, and that meaning is generated through

students’ personal and subjective interpretations of experience through hands on, interpersonal

learning experiences (Schiro, 2013).

Therefore, the student-teacher relationship must change from hierarchy and high power distance to

a partnership, democratic in learning. Komin (1990) contends that “although democracy is an

attractive, legitimate form, the substance of democracy is still lacking in the basic value systems

of the Thai.” For example, the more egalitarian power structure, in which students are encouraged,

and feel empowered to, ask questions, poses challenges to both teachers and students. Firstly, in

traditional Thai education asking questions is not customary. Students are expected to obey

teachers, who, being experts, are not supposed to be questioned (Phungphol, 2005). Thai teachers

may therefore feel threatened, fearing loss of face, of being unable to answer the questions, or that

the questions might show that the students had greater knowledge than them. On the other hand,

students may feel pressured to be more active and less passive, in their participation (Jivaketu,

2015).

There is also change in motivational strategies. Extrinsic motivation is the basis of traditional Thai

instruction. However, in student centered learning the approach would shift to intrinsic motivation,

in which students are inspired to engage in learning for the sake of learning. This could be

problematic, as teachers would no longer rely on the power inherent in their position; that is,

teachers could no longer expect and demand that students would do the work simply because they

were ordered to do so. Concurrently, students will face new challenges as they transition from

being passive receptacles of information to self-directed participants in their own learning journeys

(Jivaketu, 2015). Students will need to discover their own intrinsic motivation in order to fully

engage themselves in the new social and self-directed style of learning. Student centered learning

will challenge students to adapt to an increased responsibility. Students will be demanded to

develop in such areas as the self-regulation of their learning progress, interpersonal skills for more

collaborative group activity, lifelong learning skills and conflict management. This change in the

student role from passivity in traditional learning to active and volitional in student centered

68




learning is challenging. Thai educationalists have noted that being passive learners and having a

lack of responsibility for their own learning are among the key challenges Thai students face in the

21st century (Jivaketu, 2015, Wiriyachitra, 2002). Anunthavorasakul (2018) states that “the new

‘self-directed learning’ approach challenges students in Thailand … to take responsibility and be

accountable for learning by doing their own research … [and] managing their own schedules.”

“Face” is a fundamental Thai cultural value and it is related to hierarchy and high power distance.

For Thais, ego and self-esteem are crucial. Causing loss of face in another is to be avoided at all

times (Komin, 1990). Thais strive to always maintain harmony in social interactions, and to avoid

disagreements or unpleasant interchanges. Thus, Thais avoid open expression of their feelings and

thoughts to others (Pinyuchon & House, 1998). The mode of communication in Thai culture is

distinctly that of indirect communication, in which opinions are expressed in ways which take into

account the interlocutor’s face. Stated another way, Thai culture is based on the ideal of pleasant,

no-conflict interpersonal interactions (Komin, 1990). One effect of the primacy of face is that

learning English has been difficult as Thai students are shy to speak English with each other in

class (Wiriyachitra, 2002). Furthermore, in student centered learning lies increased potential for

interpersonal conflict as students are encouraged to more openly express their individual opinions,

a potential disharmony at odds with Thai culture. The open, expressive atmosphere of student

centered learning is challenging to both traditional Thai teachers and students, who feel that asking

questions or expressing contrasting opinions challenges other people’s pride, potentially causing

loss of face. Pinyuchon and Gray (1997) state that “Thai people still find it difficult to express

themselves openly, particularly when their ideas are challenged with disagreement, because social

harmony is highly emphasized among Thais.”

In sum, hierarchy, high power distance and face are Thai cultural values that are directly reflected

in traditional instruction and these values clash with the democratic values of student centered

learning. Thusly, the Thai education system faces a particular set of cultural issues in utilizing the

student centered approach, which contradicts the traditional Thai teacher-centered classroom, and

causes a lot of unanticipated changes (Sarabol, 2012, Jivaketu, 2015).

Summary of differences in values:

Traditional Traditional Student Centered Student Centered

Values Instruction Values Instruction

Hierarchy, high

power distance

Teacher is expert Democracy,

egalitarian

Teacher is facilitator

Hierarchy, high

power distance

Students are empty

vessels

Democracy,

egalitarian

Students have prior

knowledge, students

construct knowledge

Hierarchy, high

power distance

Power resides in

teacher

Democracy,

egalitarian

Power is shared.

Collaboration.

Hierarchy, high

power distance

Students are followers.

Obedience.

Democracy,

egalitarian

Students cooperate

Hierarchy, high

power distance

Teachers’ power

derives from authority

& status

Democracy,

egalitarian

Teachers’ power

derives from earned

respect

69




Hierarchy, high

power distance

Students respect

teachers’ status, as

experts, student

questions are less

encouraged

Democracy,

egalitarian

Students respect

teachers’ embodiment

of leadership

Hierarchy, high

power distance

Teacher controls &

transmits knowledge

Democracy,

egalitarian

Students construct

knowledge.

Knowledge is gained

through multiple,

varied sources.

Face Teachers may feel

threatened by

questions for fear of

loss of face

Open communication As facilitators, teachers

encourage interpersonal

communication

Face As followers, students

would not like to

cause loss of face to

teacher, demur to ask

questions

Open communication Students share

thoughts, feelings.

Communicative,

collaborative.

Face Students shy to share

opinions, for fear of

causing social

disharmony & loss of

face.

Open communication Students share

thoughts, feelings.

Communicative,

collaborative.

(Synthesized from Boonprasert, 2010, Glickman et. al., 2014, Hoy & Hoy, 2013, Jivaketu, 2015,

Komin, 1990, Mathew, 1959, Methinin & Gray, 1997, Phungphol, 2005, Sarobol, 2012,

Seritanondh, 2013, Smith & Piele, 2006, Wongwanich et. al., 2014)

Envisioning: A Cross-Cultural Approach

“… most [cross-cultural] theorists concur on one basic idea: To continue to make progress

(however defined), at some point the individual must undergo a major shift in consciousness.”

(Moodian, 2009)

Envisioning the end is enough to put the means in motion. (Dorothea Brand, author)

Individual Level Change

The change for teachers to student centered learning involves more than pedagogical change,

swapping old teaching techniques for new ones, like a change of clothes. Change is complex;

change in teaching approach entails change in behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. Teachers necessarily

experience change to their roles, expectations and power, which can be unfamiliar and

discomforting. Jivaketu (2015) states that “… these new approaches [student centered learning]

were complex and confusing … … policymakers could not see how difficult it would be for the

majority of Thai teachers … to adjust to a radically different system.” It is specifically these

70




overlooked, unanticipated changes which need to be explored in teacher training programs. It is

not only teachers’ skillsets that need to be developed, but also the cognitive and affective

dimensions, the minds and the hearts, the values, attitudes and perspectives of teachers, and

educationalists.

A cross-cultural component exploring the Western student centered learning educational

environment should therefore be added to Thai teacher training programs. The purpose of cross-

cultural teacher education would be twofold: first, through comparative and exploratory analysis,

to understand differences in values, roles and expectations of traditional versus student centered

learning; and second, to provide theoretical and practical means for teachers to have self-leadership

in their ongoing navigation of the inherent changes and challenges present in the change to the new

student centered learning environment. These components are directed at the individual level

toward empowering teachers to understand and cope with change, and to have the skills necessary

to continue developing professionally after completion of student centered training.

In this process envisioning would be a main goal. Cross-cultural envisioning helps synthesize

where one is now, and where one aspires to be, and helps people to cope with the vicissitudes,

opportunities and difficulties of working in an environment that may be dramatically different

(Cortes & Wilkinson, 2009). In the process of cross-cultural envisioning, individuals move through

stages of awareness, or consciousness, from culturally constrained to cultural transcenders (Cortes

& Wilkinson, 2009). Teachers consciously explore the dimensions of change. Regarding Thai

culture; how much and in what ways is traditional culture constraining? What aspects of traditional

culture are most necessary to be changed? Regarding student centered learning; what are its most

appealing aspects? How does it conflict with traditional culture? In teachers’ world-views; what is

our vision of our ideal practice? While through this inquiry and envisioning process bearing in

mind what are the limits to change? How much change is necessary? How much change is

acceptable for us? Exactly how far are would we like to become student centered teachers?

A crucial element in the process of envisioning is defining values. Clearly defined values can help

individuals to discern right from wrong, to cope with unfamiliar situations and to make decisions

when dealing with ethical difficulties (Lashway, 2006). Values driven persons make decisive

decisions because they know where they stand. Values exploration would help Thai teachers to

consciously clarify their existing values and beliefs concerning their practice, how those values

relate to student-centered learning, and their beliefs, assumptions and perceptions of student

centered learning. In this way, reflective enquiry would be a useful tool. Reflective questions for

teachers concerning values may include: What are my values in relation to the questioning

atmosphere (inquiry based learning) of the student centered classroom? Which of my inner

personal values are inviolable and which can be adapted to better fit the democratic values of

student centered learning? How do I envision the decentralization of power from teacher center

learning? How do I envision my role as more of a facilitator? In what ways do I need to change to

facilitate my shift to student centered learning? How can I promote collaborative work involving

the expression of individual opinions while still remaining true to Thai societal value of non-

confrontation, harmony and maintenance of face? How is the traditional knowledge and experience

that I possess relevant and relatable to student centered learning? The ongoing practice of reflective

inquiry may help teachers take a more learning, appreciative and receptive orientation to the new

approach of student centered learning. In fact, the inclusion of reflective inquiry, in this instance

71




upon values and beliefs, coincides with a need for Thai teacher training programs to more broadly

promote reflective inquiry (Wongwanich et. al., 2014).

Institutional Level Change

As traditional teachers are being asked to implement student centered learning in their classrooms,

the principles of student centered learning ought to be reflected and incorporated into the training

given those teachers. However, Thai teacher development programs have commonly taught student

centered learning through traditional instruction; the subject of student centered learning is

ironically explained through direct instruction, and teachers/students are given little opportunity to

actively practice student centered pedagogy (Jivaketu, 2015). If Thai teacher training programs are

to be successful, they must be reformed to be themselves centered on student centered learning.

That they are currently this way is a reification of a wider, endemic issue that the extant

environment in which student centered learning is being espoused is antithetical to it. For teachers

to become skilled practioners of the new method broad societal, educational and organizational

change is required. The educational culture in which teachers work must be aligned with the vision

and goals of student centered learning. It is therefore not that Thai teachers are incapable or

unwilling to adopt, or adapt, the new approach that is a problem, but that the educational and

societal culture in which they operate does not support student centered learning.

Addressing change at the institutional level toward creating a student centered culture, values

exploration is again a good first step (Glickman et. al., 2014). At this level, examples of reflective

questions would be: What are the institute’s (teacher training program’s) current educational

practices? On what beliefs, values and assumptions is this praxis based? How does the current

practice affect teachers/students (Glickman et. al., 2014)? This line of reflective inquiry should be

introduced through a collegial, collaborative approach. Currently, teacher training supervision is

hierarchical. In their study on enhancing reflective inquiry in teacher training programs,

Wongwanich et. al. (2014) cited hierarchical leadership as a major deterrent, because it did not

promote a collaborative environment. A vicious cycle is evident: in order for supervision to become

student centered it must actively engage in practices such as reflective inquiry, but in order to do

reflective enquiry, leadership should be student centered. To alleviate this deadlock, supervisors

competent in, and confident to apply, student centered learning should be appointed to instructional

leadership positions in teacher training programs. Candid reflective discussion by supervisors with

teachers would help to build trust by giving teachers input and inclusion in the change process.

This is critical, as Thai teachers have essentially been left out of the process (Jivaketu, 2015). Trust

building is a critical process; lacking trust, teachers will feel excluded, and not buy into the change

process. A basic, crucial initial step then is for teacher training supervisors to lead by example and

change from hierarchical leadership to student centered learning, and in the process thereby give

teachers a voice.

In order for Thai teacher training institutes to change their human resource practice to employ

supervisors competent in student centered learning in leadership positions, re-envisioning at the

organizational level must occur. They must align their vision, mission and objectives to create a

holistic, intentioned plan to affect real organizational culture change. The lack of, and need for,

student centered competent leadership is one reification of many unforeseen but required auxiliary

changes. Educational bureaucrats will need to do reflective inquiry in order to create a concordant

vision, mission and objectives. Currently student centered learning is commonly perceived as a

reform policy set by bureaucrats, as the latest trend with a new set of terminology to learn, but little

72




substance. In order for significant, lasting change to occur policy makers, and educational and

instructional leaders shall be required to lead by example.

The points made in this section are highlighted as follows:

Cross-cultural Approach to Cope with Change to Student Centered Learning

Individual Level

Envisioning for self-leadership: what is our ideal praxis in negotiating between the

traditional and student centered models?

Values exploration for self-leadership: what are our core values and how do they affect

our practice? Which are inviolable and which may be adapted?

Reflective inquiry: to actively reflect upon our current practice, our ideal practice, our

direct experience, and our values and beliefs for self-development and self-leadership

Institutional Level

Envisioning for organizational level leadership: what are the opportunities, and threats,

present in shifting to the new method? What is the ideal student learning environment in

considering traditional heritage and student centered learning?

Values exploration for organizational level leadership: what traditional values and beliefs

are sacred, and how do they affect organizational change? In changing to the new method,

what should be the fundamental values of the 21st century educational institute?

Reflective inquiry for educational policy-makers and supervisors: to actively reflect upon

our own practice as the agenda makers for student centered learning so that we practice

what we preach, and progressively build a student centered learning culture from the top

down.

Cultural Respect

The slow uptake of student centered learning in Thailand can be hypothetically explained by a

subconscious hesitancy or objection to the Western values undergirding it. There is the natural and

understandable fear of losing their cultural identity, an issue which connects Western student

centered philosophy and its underlying value system with themes of Western imperialism through

globalization and internationalization. A frank discussion by Thai educationalists going forward

on the extent to which it actually desires its education to become student centered, and how best to

adapt student centered learning to fit with its own cultural traditions, would be beneficial. Amidst

the rapid and ongoing cultural change Thailand has experienced over the last generation, Thailand’s

culture must be respected and valued. There is a genuine risk of loss of cultural heritage. Hierarchy,

high power distance, face and pleasant interpersonal relationships are integral, fundamental

components of Thai culture and they should be respected. Traditional teaching possesses its own

merits. Traditional, hierarchical, direct teaching, expects students to acquire knowledge of content

and conceptual frameworks, has clearly defined and understandable teacher and student roles, is

73




effective in preparing for exams, and is useful in situations of large class sizes (Hoy & Hoy, 2013,

Schiro, 2013, Smith & Piele, 2006). In the current, Western originated, global educational emphasis

on student centered learning the positive aspects of traditional teaching are often overshadowed.

How can Thai education incorporate the values of democracy, reflective inquiry and inquiry based

learning while simultaneously respecting and maintaining its cultural heritage of deep respect for

elders, and primary importance of smooth, non-conflict interpersonal relationships? How can Thai

teachers learn to value questions in the classroom, as demonstrations of students’ engagement in

the learning process, rather than as threats to face and their hierarchical status? These are not easy

questions to answer.

Thusly, utilizing a cross-cultural approach is good because it is an approach that explicitly calls for

inclusion of the local, indigenous voice. In this light, this paper’s initial exploration of the

underlying values of Western student centered learning and traditional Thai culture can assist

educationalists in Thailand. While in the Thai indigenous literature in English the topic of a cultural

gap has been raised, this paper has uniquely focused upon it. Going forward, the discussion would

be greatly served by contributions from Thai scholars.

Finally, generally speaking, the discussion of Thailand’s culture can also apply to other East and

Southeast Asian nations, as many of these nations share similar values of hierarchy, high power

distance and face (and like Thailand are primarily collectivistic). At the same time, in that discourse

lies danger of stereotyping. To be cross-culturally competent each nation’s unique socio-historical

background, demographic makeup, political system, religions, natural environment, languages and

similar related factors should be considered.

Conclusion

“Open your arms to change, but don’t let go of your values.” Dalai Lama

Student centered learning was made a fundamental component of Thai educational reform in the

1999 NEA. Differences in cultural values between traditional Thai instruction and student centered

learning exist which present challenges. Since in general teachers grow accustomed to their own

methods of teaching and because in Thailand traditional instruction is closely interconnected with

traditional culture, there is natural resistance to change (Sarbol, 2012). This cultural gap has an

effect at both the individual and the organizational levels. To date, this cultural gap has not been

adequately addressed by Thai educational leaders. For example, Thai teacher training programs,

while espousing student centered learning, remain mostly traditional, hierarchical and teacher

centered. In order for more significant gains to be made in implementing student centered learning,

changes to teacher training programs should occur. At the individual level, it is recommended that

teacher training programs include a cross-cultural component that explores envisioning and

reflective inquiry, and provides plentiful opportunities for teachers to actively practice student

centered learning. For those changes to be made, educational institutes must change at the

organizational level; it is required that teacher training programs themselves become student

centered. To do so, key educational players must be the leaders of change, and themselves engage

in reflective inquiry and values exploration to generate a coherent institutional vision, mission and

objectives centered on student centered philosophy. Implementing these changes should both

improve the quality of the existing training programs and begin to initiate the impetus toward the

broader change necessary.

74




However, in addition to administrative problems in Thai teacher training programs are institutional

and local challenges hindering progress toward student centered learning. There are practical

matters. Thai teachers routinely face classes of forty or more students, class sizes for which

developing student centered lessons is difficult. Thai teachers are also burdened by serious time

constraints, in large part through administrative paperwork demanded by external quality

assessments (OECD, 2016). The OECD has cited this as a major concern (OECD, 2016). Thus,

teachers often lack sufficient preparation time. A major problem is that the current national

assessment system and student centered learning do not align. Student centered learning primarily

utilizes formative assessment and is standards and performance based. These standards are listed

in the NEA 1999, and form the spine of the new national curriculum. On the other hand, Thailand

has national standardized testing, namely, the O-Net. Summative testing does not correlate with

student center learning. Many Thai teachers are, understandably, motivated to teach for the test;

national standardized testing demotivates teachers to adopt student centered learning. This is

similar in America. Although much of the theory and research on student centered learning comes

from America, legislated standardized testing, through the Common Core Standards, has caused

American teachers to teach for the test. In fact, even though democracy and freedom are traditional

American values, many, even most, schools remain hierarchical (Glickman et. al., 2014). Given

this, change must be substantially more difficult in Thailand, whose culture itself is hierarchical.

In light of the above discussion, it is clear that student centered learning represents a radical shift,

with numerous ramifications and unanticipated changes. It is change at a more fundamental,

cultural level. If student centered learning is to truly become realized, as it has been set forth in the

NEA 1999, concentrated, sustained, consistent, cohesive effort - strategic planning - is necessary

from educational bureaucrats and educational leaders to engender the type of environment in which

student centered learning can flourish. Future research could explore effective training methods

which are suitable for Thai culture of developing teachers’ cross-cultural competency.

References

Anunthavorasakul, Athapol & Saengpassa, Chularat (2018). National Education at Turning Point.

The Nation. Jan. 1st, 2018.

Arends, R.I. (2009). Learning to Teach (8th Ed). McGraw-Hill Higher Education: USA

Becker, Kurt H. & Maunsaiyat, Somchai (2004). A Comparison of Students' Achievement and

Attitudes between Constructivist and Traditional Classroom Environments in Thailand

Vocational Electronics Programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29(2), 133-

153.

Boonprasert, Manit (2010). Development of Desirable Characteristics of the Thai University

Graduates. The 14th UNESCO-APEID International Conference on Education for Human

Resource Development, 21-23 October 2010, Bangkok, Thailand

Chin, Jean L. & Trimble, Joseph E. (2015). Chapter 5: Leadership Style, p. 115. In Diversity and

Leadership. Sage: USA

Cortes, Carlos E. & Wilkinson, Louise C. (2009). Chapter 3: Developing and Implementing A

Multicultural Vision, in Moodian, Michael A. Ed., Contemporary Leadership and

Intercultural Competence: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dynamics Within Organizations.

SAGE: USA

75




Dey, Eric L., Antonaros, Mary, Ott, Molly C., Barnhardt, Cassie L. & Holsapple, Mathew A.

(2010). Developing a Moral Compass: What is the Campus Climate For Ethics and

Academic Integrity? An initiative of the Association for American Colleges and

Universities. Association for American Colleges and Universities: USA

Flynn, William J & Vredevoogd, Jeff (2010). The Future of Learning: 12 Views on Emerging

Trends in Higher Education. Planning for Higher Education, Jan.-March, 2010

Gehrke, Bettina & Marie-Therese, Claes (2014). Global Leadership Practices: A Cross-Cultural

Management Perspective. St. Martin’s Press LLC: New York

Glickman, Carl D., Gordon, Stephen P. & Ross, Jovita M. (2014). Part two: Directive Control

Behaviors and Directive Informational Behaviors. Supervision and Instructional Leadership:

A Developmental Approach (9th Ed., 113-138). Pearson: USA

Hoy, Anita W. & Hoy, Wayne K. (2013). Instructional Leadership: A Research-Based Guide to

Learning in Schools, (4th Edition). Pearson: USA

Jampian, Sasiprapa (2014). Local Thai Pedagogical Practices and the Respect for International

Human Rights: A Case Study of Failed Corporal Punishment Ban in Thai Schools.

International Journal of Economics and Research (IPEDR). 54(41), 199-204

Bennett, Janet M. (2009). Chapter 8, Transformative Training: Designing Programs for

Culture Learning, in Moodian, Michael A. Ed., Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural

Competence: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dynamics Within Organizations. SAGE: USA

Jivaketu, Pattarasak (2015). An Evaluation of Teacher Development In Using Technology

During The First Decade of Thai Education Reform 1999-2009. Dissertation. Boston

University School of Education.

Kirtikara, Krissanapong (2001). Higher Education in Thailand and the National Reform

Roadmap. The Thai-US Education Roundtable, Bangkok, 9 January 2001.

Komin, Suntaree (1990). Psychology of the Thai People: Values and Behavior Patterns.

Research Center: National Institute of Development Administration: Bangkok.

Lashway, Larry (2006). Chapter 6: Ethical Leadership, in Smith, Stuart C. & Piele, Philip K.,

Ed’s, School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence in Student Learning (4th Ed., 85-89).

Sage: USA

Mathew, Eunice S. (1959). Cultural Values and Learning in Thailand. Journal of Education

Leadership. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 419-442.

McMurry, Robert N. 1958. The Case for Benevolent Autocracy. Harvard Business Review,

36(1), 82-90, as cited in Smith, Stuart C. & Piele, Philip K. (2006). Chapter 4, Hierarchical

Leadership. School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence in Student Learning (4th Ed., 85-

89). Sage: USA

Methinin, Pinyuchon & Gray, Lizabeth A. (1997). Understanding Thai Families: A Cultural

Context for Therapists Using A Structural Approach. Contemporary Family Therapy.

29(2), 209-227.

National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Thailand: Implementation

Handbook (2006). The Thai Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC).

Northouse, Peter G. (2016). Chapter 9: Authentic Leadership. In Northouse, Peter G. (Ed.),

Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Edition). Sage Publications:USA.

OECD/UNESCO (2016), Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO Perspective, Reviews of

National Policies for Education. OECD Publishing, Paris.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259119-en

Phungphol, Yokfar (2005). Learner-Centered Teaching Approach: A Paradigm Shift in Thai

Education. ABAC Journal 25(2), 5-16

76




Sarobol, Nopporn (2012). Implementing Cooperative Learning in English Language

Classroom: Thai University Students’ Perceptions. The International Journal of

Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(10) 111-122

Schiro, Michael S. (2013). Chapter Two: Scholar Academic Ideology, and Chapter Four: Learner

Centered Ideology. Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns (2nd

Edition) Sage: USA

Seritanondh, Siriporn (2013). Teacher Leadership Styles and Student Psychological

Characteristics Affecting The Study Methods of Foundation English Courses in Higher

Education: A Case Study of Education and Humanity/Liberal Arts Students in Thailand.

International Journal of Behavioral Science, 8(1), 17-36

Smith, Stuart C. & Piele, Philip K. (2006). Chapter 4, Hierarchical Leadership. School

Leadership: Handbook for Excellence in Student Learning (4th Ed., 85-89). Sage: USA

Wiriyachitra, Arunee (2002). English Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand in this

Decade. Retrieved November 11, 2016 from Thai Ministry of Education: reo14.moe.go.th

Wongwanich, Suwimon; Soison, Sakolrak; Chayut Piromsombat (2014). Needs for Thai

Teachers to Become a Reflective Teacher: Mixed Methods Needs Assessment Research.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116, 1645 – 1650

77

Exploring the Culture Gap between ... - Khon Kaen University

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the Culture Gap between ... - Khon Kaen University