Paper to be presented in the 10th UNESCO-APEID International Conference on

Education “Learning Together for Tomorrow: Education for Sustainable

Development”, 6-8 December 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.

The Malaysian Smart Schools Project:

An Innovation to Address Sustainability

Eng-Tek Ong
Faculty of Science and Technology
Sultan Idris University of Education, Malaysia

Abstract:

In the advent of 21st Century, Malaysia has embarked on the Smart

Schools Project which is one of the seven flagship applications that are
part of the Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Initiative. This
paper discusses the evolution of, and declaration embodied in, the Vision
2020 of Malaysia that serve to establish the needs and context for the
Smart Schools Initiative. It then reviews the conceptualised framework of
the Malaysian Smart School Model, looking at the various meanings,
attributes and features for the concept of Smart Schools and comparing
them with Perkins’ (1995) notion of Smart Schools. This paper then
highlights the grassroots implementation from the students’ perspectives,
delimiting its scope to the context of smart science teaching and learning.
The findings from the grassroots implementation are used as a
springboard for discussion on the implications for tomorrow’s education
for sustainability.

Introduction
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed, the former Malaysian Prime Minister, delivered an
impactful and significant documented speech entitled "Malaysia -- The Way Forward"
at the inaugural meeting of the Malaysian Business Council in 1991 (Mohamed, 1991,
1993). This has led to the widely known Vision 2020. The document declares that by
the year 2020, Malaysia would have achieved the status of a fully developed country,
characterised by (1) a united Malaysian nation; (2) a psychological liberated, secure
and developed Malaysian society; (3) a mature democratic society; (4) a fully moral
and ethical society; (5) a mature liberal tolerant society; (6) a scientific and
progressive society; (7) a fully caring society and a caring culture; (8) an
economically just society; and (9) a prosperous society.

The declaration of Vision 2020 has catapulted the 60:40 policy of the Malaysian
Ministry of Education to conscious awareness in the public domain. Conceptualised in
1967 by the Higher Education Planning Committee, this policy aims to achieve a ratio
of 60:40 for science versus arts-based students by 2000. However, with the present
scenario of not-very-encouraging enrolment in science-based subjects among
Malaysian students, which is far from the desired target, this policy has been extended

1
for yet another 10 years. This is truly a national agenda as the successful realisation,
or otherwise, of Vision 2020, is dependent on the outcome of the 60:40 policy.

The conceptualisation of Vision 2020 also propels Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) to the forefront, which in turn, serves as catalyst for the
transformation of the Malaysian educational system in 1999 -- the birth of the Smart
Schools Initiative. The Smart Schools Initiative is one of the seven flagship
applications that are part of Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project.
The Government of Malaysia seeks to capitalise on the presence of leading-edge
technologies and the rapid development of the MSC's infrastructure to jump-start
deployment of enabling technology to schools. Hence, the formation of a group of 90
pilot Smart Schools in 1999 that are expected to serve as the nucleus for the eventual
nation-wide deployment or rollout of Smart School teaching concepts and materials,
skills, and technologies (Smart School Project Team [SSPT], 1997a). By 2010, the
term ‘Smart’ is expected to be redundant when all schools, be they primary or
secondary, would have been transformed to Smart Schools (SSPT, 1997b).

The Malaysian Smart School Conceptual Model

The Ministry of Education started to conceptualise the Malaysian Smart School in
1996, under the leadership of the then Director-General of Education, Tan Sri Dato' Dr.
Wan Zahid Wan Mohamed. The conceptualised document entitled "The Malaysian
Smart School: A Conceptual Blueprint" (SSPT, 1997a) explains that the Malaysian
Smart School concept is derived from best practices from around the world, as well as
from the best home-grown practices of teachers and educators in Malaysia. In essence,
the Malaysian Smart School is defined as:
… a learning institution that has been systematically reinvented in terms of
teaching-learning practices and school management in order to prepare
children for the Information Age. A Smart School will evolve over time,
continuously developing its professional staff, its educational resources, and its
administrative capabilities. This will allow the school to adapt to changing
conditions, while continuing to prepare students for life in the Information Age.
To function effectively, the Smart School will require appropriately skilled staff
and well-designed supporting processes (ibid., p.10).

One of the reasons for this conceptualisation is to transform the Malaysian educational
system so that it is parallel with, and in support of, the nation’s drive to realise Vision
2020. The Vision calls for sustained, productivity-driven growth that will be
achievable only with a scientifically and technologically literate, critical thinking work
force prepared to participate fully in the global economy for the 21st Century.
Furthermore, this transformation of educational system is within the aspiration of the
Malaysian National Philosophy of Education that aims towards “developing the
potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce
individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and
harmonious” (Ministry of Education, 1997, p.2).

Such a transformation in the educational system, catalysed by the technology-

supported Smart Schools, entails changing school culture and pedagogical practices.
The memory-based learning designed for average students is replaced by education
that “stimulates thinking, creativity, and caring in all students; caters to individual

2
abilities and learning styles; and is based on more equitable access. It will require
students to exercise greater responsibility for their own learning, while seeking more
active participation by parents and the wider community” (SSPT, 1997a, p.9). A caveat
is documented that takes account of the ever evolving world of education in that “the
Smart School concept itself is still a work in progress and remains open to
evolutionary refinement, including advances in pedagogy and improvement in
information technology” (ibid., p.9).

The following two basic components of the Smart Schools will be discussed in the
ensuing subsections:
• Teaching and learning concepts
• Technology enablers

(a) Teaching and Learning Concepts

The most distinctive feature of the Smart School is the teaching and learning
environment that builds on best practices from around the world. This includes the
mutually reinforcing and coherent alignment of the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment
and teaching-learning materials.

Though the curriculum covers the same content as the existing science curriculum, it
has a different format in that the intended learning outcomes are explicitly stated at
different levels. This ensures that all students gain equal access to quality learning and
allows for self-paced learning across grades. Knowledge to be infused in the Smart
School curriculum in an integrated manner encompasses the following areas: “content
knowledge, problem solving knowledge, epistemic knowledge, and inquiry
knowledge” (SSPT, 1997a, p. 31). This matches perfectly to Perkins’ (1995) four
levels of understanding differentiated in his discussion on pedagogy of understanding.

While the values to be infused in the Smart Schools are the same 16 values
documented in the Mainstream science curriculum, the skills covered for the former
are wider, and include information technology skills – the ability to select and use IT
tools. In addition, the strong advocacy of explicit teaching of thinking skills, with
different sets of skill vocabularies stipulated for two types of thinking -- critical
thinking and creative thinking -- seems to have its roots in Perkins’ (1995) notion of
“metacurriculum”, which is in turn, adapted from other leading theorists in the area of
thinking (i.e., Costa, 1991; Paul, 1990).

Smart School pedagogy is to be ‘student-centred’ with the following characteristics

(SSPT, 1997a, p.39): “(1) appropriate mix of learning strategies to ensure mastery of
basic competencies and promotion of holistic development, (2) allowance for
individual differences in learning styles to boost performance, and (3) classroom
atmosphere compatible with different teaching-learning strategies”. However, the
pedagogy advocated does not propose that student-centred teaching should prevail all
the time. Instead, it should be “increase[d] in age and maturity” (ibid., p.39), implying
the notion of a “centredness” continuum with teacher-centred at one extreme and
student-centred at the other and teacher as mentor and model, and teacher as coach or
facilitator in between. The element of mastery learning in the Smart School resembles
Perkins’ (1995) idea of “Theory One and Beyond” which promotes, amongst others,
thoughtful practice and informative feedback.

3
The Smart School assessment system (SSPT, 1997a) shall be “criterion-referenced”
(p.51), “learner-centred” (p.52), “on-line” (p.53), and “conducted in various forms:
classroom assessment, school-based assessment and centralised assessment … [so as]
to allow different demonstrations of strengths, abilities, and knowledge” (p.54) using
“multiple approaches and instruments to perform authentic, alternative, and
performance assessments” (p.55). Nevertheless, these aspirations are far from reality
when students from the Smart Schools are taking similar school-based and centralised
assessments as their counterparts in the Mainstream Schools.

Teaching-learning materials are designed to support teaching-learning strategies for

Smart Schools, and have these characteristics: “(1) Meet curricular and instructional
needs, is cost effective, as well as cosmetically and technically adequate; (2)
Cognitively challenging, attractive, motivates students to learn, and encourages active
participation; [and] (3) Combine the best of network-based, teacher-based and
courseware materials” (ibid., p.58). These resources, acquired within and beyond
schools, are purported to have the benefits of “accommodat[ing] students’ different
needs and abilities resulting in the fuller realisation of students’ capabilities and
potential, [and] students tak[ing] responsibility for managing and directing their own
learning” (ibid., p.58).

This leads to the demarcation of three key differences in the teaching and learning
process of Smart Schools and Mainstream Schools, namely self-accessed, self-paced,
and self-directed learning. Self-accessed learning means the students learn how to
access and use relevant learning materials. Self-directed learning means that students
learn how to direct, manage and plan their learning. Self-paced learning means that a
student learns at his/her own pace, with enough challenging materials to help him/her
achieve a certain competency level. Teaching will be done in such a way to help
students achieve smart learning. Hence, when a student’s role is switched from a
relatively dependent and passive one towards self-accessed, self-paced, and self-
directed learning, the teacher’s role undergoes, in tandem, an evolution from ‘sage on
the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’.

(b) Technology Enablers

There have been disputes as to whether Smart Schools are associated with information
technology (IT), and that smart teaching and learning can be implemented with or
without IT. Gan (2000, p.81) maintains that, on the basis of the conceptual definition
for Smart Schools that rests on the premise to educate Malaysian children for and with
the tools of Information Age, “Smart Schools without IT will definitely not be able to
produce generation of IT-literate Malaysian[s] ready for the challenges of the
Information Age”. Furthermore, it has been persuasively argued that, “The journey of
the Smart School project might otherwise be a long and gradual one, but we can now
use technology to take us there quickly and efficiently” (SSPT, 1997a, p.37). The
corollary that stems from such argument is that science teaching and student learning
can be made more efficient and enabling with the use of technology.

The blueprint gives examples of IT-enriched teaching and learning practices and their
implications for IT. For instance, in self-exploratory learning, the implication would
be, “every computer shall have access to the latest educational materials available
locally, as well as to external resources” (ibid., p. 102). Nevertheless, the blueprint
suffers from a lack of specific examples as to how technology could be used as

4
enablers in science classes. This void is only partially filled when one refers to the
science syllabuses that provide one or two-sentence descriptions on the suggested IT-
enabled science teaching approaches such as the use of simulation, modelling, and
computer-assisted experimentation to teach certain concepts.

Smart Schools and Sustainable Development

As mentioned earlier, the concept of a Smart School is still a work in progress and
hence, the evolutionary refinement reflects the advances in pedagogy and
improvement in information technology. Equally, sustainable development is an
evolving and dynamic concept in terms of its conceptual definition. Accordingly, this
paper adopts the view advocated by the World Commission on Environment and
Development (1987) on the description of sustainable development: “Sustainable
development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising [or, impairing] the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
[or, to enjoy similar, if not better, quality of life and opportunity as ours]” (p.43).

Sustainable development is generally perceived as an overlapping of dimensions or

components, namely environment, (cultural and) society, and economy (UNESCO,
2005). These three dimensions are thought to operate, metaphorically, as three
overlapping same-sized circles with the overlapping area being perceived as the
human well-being. The more aligned the three dimensions are, the higher the area of
overlapping which, in turn, translates to higher levels of human well-being. The
corollary that stems from this metaphorical perception on sustainable development is
that a balanced, harmonious, symbiotically interdependent, and aligned consideration
of environmental, societal and economic dimensions is needed in our pursuit of
development and enhanced quality of life.

Therefore, with the advent of Smart Schools, it is the hope that the future generations
of Malaysia are adequately skilled and equipped for the Information Age without
compromising the perpetuation of Malaysian cherished noble values and culture.

Grassroots Implementation
This section reviews some literature pertaining to the implementation of Smart
Schools Initiative. It should be noted that given the scarcity of research report that
shows the extent to which the Smart Schools Initiative has taken root in classroom
since its rollout in 1999, the author has conducted an implementation study which
aimed to characterise the so-called ‘smart science teaching’ using multi-method survey
of students, teachers, and lessons (Ong, 2004). However, due to the limited space, only
reported findings of students’ perceptions on science learning experience in the Smart
and Mainstream Schools (Ong & Ruthven, 2003, 2004a, 2004b) will be revisited.

The students’ perceptions are revealing in that they provide information on subtle but
important aspects of classroom life (Fisher, 1994; Fraser, 1994). Additionally, the
validity and reliability of students’ perceptions on their teachers and learning
environment are no longer a bone of contention (Ramsden, 1997). Moreover, judging
by previous studies, such usage is widespread among highly respected researchers
(Fraser, 1981; Hofstein & Lazarowitz, 1986; Kempa & Orion, 1989).

The differential perceptions on science learning experience between a group of 383

Form 3 students in two Smart Schools and a group of 381 Form 3 students in two

5
Mainstream Schools were gauged and compared using the validated Smart Science
Learning Experience Inventory or SSLEI (Ong & Ruthven, 2003). SSLEI has two
versions:

(1) Original 30-item full-scale SSLEI that yielded a high Cronbach’s alpha (α =
0.89) and that it measures the overall perceptions of smart science learning
experience; and
(2) psychometrically revised 24-item SSLEI that comprises eight subscales,
namely (1) Information and Communication Technology, (2) Supported
Learning, (3) Science Process Skills, (4) Constructivist Practice, (5) Self-
Determined Learning, (6) Learning Preference, (7) Active Thinking, and (8)
Values Inculcation. These factors explain, reflect and represent the way in
which 764 15-year-old students collectively perceived their science learning
experience, responding to items originally conceived to represent the
theoretical demand of science learning experience. This line of argument is
consistent with the findings of Aldridge and Fraser (1997) who acknowledge
the occurrence of different interpretation to some of their questionnaire items
from the way intended. The indicators for each of the eight subscales are
provided in Table 1.

Table 1:
Subscale Indicators

Subscale Indicator
Information and Teacher provides/encourages the use of computer hardware and software
Communication programmes in teaching and learning.
Technology (ICT)
Supported Teacher plays an active and supportive role in ensuring progressive
Learning (SP) understanding of scientific concepts.
Science Process Teacher provides the learning tasks that involve hypothesizing, planning and/or
Skills (SPS) carrying out a science investigative or laboratory-based work.
Constructivist Teacher uncovers students’ pre-instructional views, and provides learning
Practice (CP) activities to test their earlier views so that students construct an understanding
of scientific concepts that mirrors the school science view.
Self-Determined Teacher allows the learning of topics that a student wants to, interests in, and
Learning (SDL) decides upon within his/her current learning ability.
Learning Teacher provides appropriate learning experiences that match students’
Preference (LP) learning styles.
Active Thinking Teacher encourages students to explain, justify, and discuss using words,
(AT) graphics and symbols within the context of student-student and student-teacher
interactions.
Values Inculcation Teacher relates current theoretical or practical work to noble values.
(VI)
* A full discussion of the generation and validation of the 30-item SSLEI and 24-item revised
SSLEI is reported in Ong and Ruthven (2003).

In relation to the original 30-item full-scale Smart Science Learning Experience

Inventory or SSLEI, the findings from the analyses of students’ self-reports by group,
gender, and class level, including the possible interactions among them, using 2 x 2 x
3 (Group x Gender x Class Level) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) are summarised
below:

6
 • The main effect of group was highly significant (F = 122.42, p < .001) and
accounted for 14.0% of the total variance in the full-scale SLEI. Students in
the Smart Schools perceived their science learning experience more
favorably than students in the Mainstream Schools.

• The main effect of gender was not significant (p = .174). There was no
significant difference in perceptions towards the science learning
experience between male and female students.

• The main effect of class level was significant (F = 5.27, p < .05) and
accounted for 1.4% of the total variance in the full-scale SLEI. Students in
low-achieving classes rated their science learning experience appreciably
higher than did students in average- and high-achieving classes.

• The two-way group x gender interaction was statistically significant (F =

5.32, p < .05). While in the Mainstream Schools, males and females rated
their experience at similar levels, in the Smart Schools, females rated their
experience appreciably higher than did males.

• The two-way gender x class level interaction was statistically significant (F

= 3.58, p < .05). While male ratings were relatively stable across class
level, low-achieving females rated their science learning experience
appreciably higher than did average- and high-achieving females.
(Ong & Ruthven, 2004a)

Meanwhile, the results of three-way 2 x 2 x 3 (group x gender x class level)

multivariate analysis of variance performed on the data from students’ self-reports as
measured in analyses using a psychometrically revised 24-item SSLEI that comprises
eight subscales, namely (1) Information and Communication Technology, (2)
Supported Learning, (3) Science Process Skills, (4) Constructivist Practice, (5) Self-
Determined Learning, (6) Learning Preference, (7) Active Thinking, and (8) Values
Inculcation, are summarised below:

• Broadly, students in the Smart Schools reported a level of science learning

experience in terms of ICT, Supported Learning (SL), Science Process Skills
(SPS), Constructivist Practice (CP), Self-Determined Learning (SDL),
Learning Preference (LP), Active Thinking (AT), and Values Inculcation (VI)
which was appreciably higher that did students in the Mainstream Schools.

• There was no significant difference of perceptions between males and females

taken as a whole. However, gender did moderate the main group or class level
effect as evident in students’ experiences of Constructivist Practice (CP),
Supported Learning (SL), and Self-Determined Learning (SDL).

• In relation to the CP experience, the main group effect was moderated by

gender where girls in Smart Schools reported a higher level of CP experience
than girls in the Mainstream Schools while the male ratings were relatively
stable across the groups.

7
 • The class level effect on SL indicated that average- and high-achieving
students reported significantly higher level of SL experience than low-
achieving students. However, this class level effect occurred mainly among
male students where male students at low class level tended to rate relatively
lower than males at high class level.

• In relation to SDL experience, there was neither a straightforward gender nor

class level effect. However, there was a significant gender and class level
interaction effect. While for the males, there was no significant difference
between any of the class levels, for the females, low-achieving girls reported
an appreciably higher level of SDL experience than average- and high-
achieving girls.
(Ong & Ruthven, 2004b)

Implications for Teacher Education

While most teacher education programmes incorporate element of micro-teaching as a
way of practising (for instance, a certain aspect of pedagogical approach) and getting
feedback (say, on one’s performance) for subsequent consolidation and/or
improvement, the element of using a systematic enquiry to get students’ feedback is
almost unfamiliar among teachers. Fraser (1981) reports how feedback information
based on student perceptions can be employed as a basis for reflection upon,
discussion of, and systematic attempts to create better schools and classrooms. On that
basis, it is then sensible to suggest that in Teacher Education, student teachers should
be taught to improve their smart science pedagogical approach through the judicious
use of inventory to get feedback based on student perceptions.

When girls in Smart Schools reported a higher level of Constructivist Practice

experience than girls in the Mainstream Schools while the male ratings were relatively
stable across the groups, this should be a cause for concern, lest the males be further
marginalised and disadvantaged in terms of academic achievement with the advent of
Smart Schools Initiative. The caution on ‘further marginalisation of boys” should be
viewed seriously given the prevalent trend in which girls have consistently
outperformed boys in educational achievements (e.g., Wong, Lam, & Ho, 2002).
Lending further support, Demie (2001) reports that, “Whatever the pupils’ ethnic
origin, girls tend to perform at higher levels than boys at all key stages” (p.91). This
has some pedagogical implications for teacher education, particularly in reviewing the
prevalently employed and purported “girl-friendly” (or “feminised”) teaching
approaches in the science classrooms.

The collective “voices” from low-achieving male students which echo a lack of
supported learning experience as compared to their average- and high-achieving peers
should be given due attention. While it is commendable to embark on projects that
meet the needs of the gifted and most able in science, equal attention (or even more)
should be given to low-achieving students in supporting their science learning. It is
hypothesized that more individualised teacher-supported ICT-based learning will be
needed in order to raise academic performance of the low-achieving students.

8
Accordingly, pedagogical approaches that specifically cater to the needs of bottom set
or low-achieving students should be in place in any teacher education programme.

Conclusion
It is laudable for the Ministry of Education to be forward-looking in rolling out the
Smart Schools Initiative -- a curriculum innovation or change, if you like, that
contends to reinvent the teaching and learning practices as well as the school
management in a systematic fashion so as to prepare the Malaysian children for the
Information Age. However, a concerted effort from all divisions in the Malaysian
Ministry of Education, ranging from the Curriculum Development Centre, the
Textbooks Division, Teacher Training Division, Educational Technology Division, to
The Inspectorate of Schools, is crucial and significant in ensuring that such
curriculum innovation is worthy of its implementation so as to enhance pupil
progress, achievement and development across gender, ethnicity, social economic
status, and academic ability. Given the marked favourable experiences amongst the
girls and that the boys are somewhat marginalised, particularly those from the the
bottom set, there are implications for the science teacher education in addresing these
gender and ability related problems. Therefore, with some fine tuning and tightening
work on the nuts and bolts for gender and ability, the curriculum innovation from the
Smart Schools Inititative will categorically help address sustainability.

9
References

Aldridge, J.M., & Fraser, B.J. (1997). Examining science classroom environments in a
cross-national study. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational
Research Forum 1997. (Retrieved August 14, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://education.curtin.edu.au/waier/forums/1997/aldridge.html)

Costa, A. (1991). The school as a home for the mind. Palatine, IL: Skylight
Publishing.

Demie, F. (2001). Ethnic and gender differences in educational achievement and

implications for school improvement strategies. Educational Research, 43(1), 91–106.

Fisher, D.L. (Ed.). (1994). The study of learning environments, Volume 6. Perth,
Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Fraser, B.J. (1981). Learning environment in curriculum evaluation: A review.

Evaluation in Education: An International Review Series, 5(1), 3-93.

Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York:
Macmillan.

Gan, S.L. (2000). IT and education in Malaysia: Problems, issues and challenges. KL:
Longman.

Hofstein, A., & Lazarowitz, R. (1986). A comparison of the actual and preferred
classroom learning environment in biology and chemistry as perceived by high school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 189-199.

Kempa, R.F., & Orion, N. (1996). Students' perception of co-operative learning in

earth science fieldwork. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14(1), 33-
41.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1997). Education in Malaysia. KL: Ministry of

Education Malaysia.

Mohamad, Mahathir. (1991). Malaysia: The Way Forward. Kuala Lumpur: Centre for
Economic Research & Service, Malaysian Business Council. [This is the text of
working paper presented by YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the inaugural
meething of the Malaysian Business Council held in Kuala Lumpuer on February 28,
1991]

Mohamed, Mahathir. (1993). Malaysia: The Way Forward, Vision 2020:

Understanding the concepts, implications, and challenges. Selangor: Pelanduk
Publication.

10
Ong, E.T. (2004). The character of the character of ‘smart science teaching’ in
Malaysian schools and its effects on student attitudes, process skills, and achievement.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.

Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2003). Validity and Reliability of Smart Science Learning
Experience Inventory (SSLEI). Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in
Southeast Asia, 26(2), 76–106.

Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2004a). The perceptions on science learning experience of
Malaysian students in Smart and Mainstream schools. Malaysian Journal of
Educational Technology, 4(1), 21-35.

Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2004b). Investigating the smart science learning
experience amongst Malaysian students. Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education in Southeast Asia, 27(1), 87-116.

Paul, R.W. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly
changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Centre for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique,
Sonoma State University.

Perkins, D.N. (1995). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child.
New York: The Free Press.

Ramsden, P. (1997). Student learning and perceptions of academic environment.

Higher Education, 8, 411-27.

Smart School Project Team. (1997a). Smart School flagship application: The
Malaysian Smart School – A conceptual blueprint. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of
Education.

Smart School Project Team. (1997b). The Malaysian Smart School: Implementation
plan. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing Our Schools. Buckingham: Open University
Press.

UNESCO. (2005). Draft International Implementation Strategy for the DESD.

(Retrieved August 10, 2006, from the World Wide Web:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001403/140372e.pdf)

Wong, K.C., Lam, Y. R., & L.M. Ho. (2002). The effects of schooling on gender
differences. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 827-843.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11