3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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the hardware is out of date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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
12. 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%
13. 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
14. 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
16. 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
