This study aims to further develop research on the Tripartite Education System (TES) for Thailand and the ASEAN region. The collaboration between governmental agencies, industries and education institutions (universities, technical colleges) in a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) has proven to be of benefit in achieving a workforce able to cope with the challenges of the labour market in an Industry 4.0 environment. However, there is still debate on how to organize the PPP specifically. This essay gives some insights into three variants of the Thai School-in-Factory (SiF) model implemented at the Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, which will be called Collaboration A, Collaboration B and Collaboration C. The analyses are done by reviewing existing documents on the projects (such as Memorandums of Understanding), and the review will show similarities and differences in collaboration structure, elements and concepts, objectives, roles of educational institutes and industries, curriculum, and finally, criteria and processes for student selection. The three collaborations (A, B, and C) share similarities in collaboration structure, elements and objectives but differ in curriculum and student selection processes. Another difference lies in the process of selecting students to participate because Variant C does not include the participation responsibilities when the SiF was established. Despite these differences, all three collaborations involve the RMUTL acting as a facilitator between companies, educational institutions and the public. The findings of these comparative analyses will contribute to broadening the understanding of effective approaches while bridging the gap between academia and industry and preparing students for successful careers. Additionally, these analyses can be helpful as Thai best practices for the ASEAN region and especially the CLM countries.

Keywords: Tripartite Education System, School-in-Factory, Public-Private Partnership, Collaboration, Comparative TVET Research

1        Introduction

Vocational education encounters a challenge in how it traditionally readies people for jobs in the lower and middle skill levels. The specific problem arises from the decrease in medium-skilled jobs. While vocational education plays a role, it cannot solve this problem alone. This issue requires economic and social strategies implemented by governments and social partners (Wheelahan & Moodie 2016). Developed within the framework of the tripartite system and involving technical and vocational institutes, employers, and the government, Thailand’s dual education system aims to enhance its ability to cultivate a competitive workforce (Mongkhonvanit 2017).

Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) in Thailand involves a collaborative effort among various stakeholders to ensure effective implementation and positive outcomes (OCED 2021, 108) Collaboration with TVET in Thailand typically involves the following three main partners. (1) The public sector: the Ministry of Education and relevant government bodies play a crucial role in setting policies, regulations, and standards for TVET. The collaboration among different public or government departments ensures a holistic approach to TVET, addressing various sectors and industries. (2) The educational sector: the collaboration between vocational schools, technical colleges, and universities helps create a seamless educational pathway for students. Establishing partnerships between educational institutions and industries is essential to aligning curriculum with industry needs. (3) The industry sector: collaboration with industry is vital for designing relevant and up-to-date curricula that meet the current demands of the job market. Moreover, industry-sponsored apprenticeships, internships and on-the-job training programs strengthen the connection between education and real-world applications (OCED 2021, 109).

However, the organizational structures and collaboration origin of the Tripartite Education System, within the Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna model (Moonpa et al. 2021), differ from (Mongkhonvanit 2017) in terms of partners. In the organizational structures and origin of the Tripartite Education System related to the the Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna model, collaboration is emphasized between the private and public sectors (partnership) and the education sectors (TVET College and University). This is achieved by establishing interconnected relationships, where the university, acting as the project manager and supporter, aligns the ideas and operations with the missions of each organization. This collaboration is evident through the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) signed jointly from 2013 to 2018 and continues to the present. Challenges arising from the joint implementation include teaching and training learners to meet labour market demands, recruiting learners for employment in companies, aligning training with institutional regulations, establishing collaboration frameworks, communicating with partners, and other shared activities. Meanwhile, common problems include unclear communication and collaboration among partners, a lack of understanding of their roles and responsibilities, difficulties in supporting learners during training at companies with multiple locations, and a lack of social welfare. Despite these challenges, the government has opportunities to support the expansion of educational models, enhance mutual understanding and contribute to the country’s workforce development in a unified direction.

Proposing to enhance collaboration among vocational schools, businesses, and government agencies within the Tripartite system structure is crucial for establishing a resilient model for the Thai TVET learning system. However, in practice, this cooperative network is not implemented effectively (Permpoonwiwat & Chantith 2023).

The research on implemented collaboration between partnerships in Tripartite Education System provides insights into the perspectives, goals, responsibilities and relationships among organizations, particularly in developing the workforce to meet the specific needs of each partner. This study aims to find out the similarities and differences in three variants of School-in-Factory (SiF) in terms of collaboration structures, elements, concept and collaboration objectives, roles and responsibilities of each partner, curriculum, as well as the criteria /processes for student selection and participation. The following section will present some insights into collaboration. The first gives theoretical considerations and then the concrete collaboration in Thai’s TVET system. Section 3 describes the methodology used in analyzing the three variants of SiF, while Section 4 presents the research findings. From these results recommendations are derived for a cooperative TVET in Thailand and the wider ASEAN region.

2        Literature review

2.1       Collaboration theoretical

According to Chrislip and Larson (1994), Collaboration extends beyond communication, cooperation, and coordination. Its roots in Latin, “com” and “laborare,” signify “to work together.” It represents a mutually beneficial relationship among two or more parties, sharing responsibility, authority and accountability to achieve common goals. Collaboration goes beyond just sharing knowledge and information (communication) or assisting each party in reaching its own goals (cooperation and coordination). The primary purpose of collaboration is to create a shared vision and collaborative strategies to address concerns that surpass the scope of any individual party (Chrislip & Larson 1994, 5).

The character of collaboration differs in cooperation and coordination according to the 3C’s continuum. Collaboration is defined by strong and closely interconnected relationships. Participants understand that to achieve results, they must be willing to significantly change how they think, behave, and operate. Collaboration involves more than just making small adjustments; it requires transforming systems. This means participants are engaged in a challenging, high-risk and unpredictable environment that can produce outcomes quite different from the original intentions. Successful collaboration demands a high level of trust and extensive communication among participants. Although it involves risks, those willing to take them may find it highly rewarding. In a collaboration, the usual way of doing things (“business as usual”) is no longer sufficient. Participants must establish new connections and adopt new approaches to interact with each other (Keast & Mandell 2013; Gray 1989).

Collaboration is a challenging process, and its likelihood of success relies on several prerequisites: purpose, basic requirements, process and environment, as well as resources, rewards, commitments and responsibilities (Wolff 2005).The driving force is the anticipation of achieving outcomes that would be unattainable if the parties worked independently (Luis & Hamideh 2008).

2.2       TVET Education Collaboration in Thailand

The dual education system in Thailand was initiated in 1984 with support from the German government. The Siam Cement Group collaborated on the initial project for the Department of Vocational Education. In 1989, the Ministry of Education authorized a pilot curriculum in factory maintenance supported by Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (today GIZ). In 1991, dual systems were implemented at Minburi Technical College, Samut Songkhram Technical College, and Rayong Technical College. In 1992, the name of the educational management system, “School-Factory (Dual System)”, was changed to a system where students received a Skilled Worker Certificate upon graduation and were allowed to work in companies. Between 1995 and 1998, the context shifted towards the Dual Vocational System. The focus was on public relations to build understanding as well as the development of teachers, instructors in enterprises, and experts. In 2002, the Ministry of Education permitted apprenticeships for half of the students in the educational program. From 2008 until the present, Dual Vocational Education has been a form of technical and vocational education and training agreements between educational institutions and the private sector. In 2014, dual education was integrated into the national agenda to enhance the quality and quantity of technical and vocational education (Mongkhonvanit 2017; Dual Vocational Education Center 2017).

In 2014, a survey conducted by the SCB Economic Intelligence Centre among 222 companies in six key sectors in Thailand revealed that 53% of employers encountered difficulties filling job vacancies within three months (OECD 2020). The challenge is most pronounced when seeking workers with vocational degrees, with a shortfall of 23% of the total workers required. This hiring gap exceeds that of university graduates (14%) and individuals with a high school education or less (11%). Various factors contribute to employers’ difficulties filling vacancies, including high labour demand (56%) and a mismatch between available and required skills (47%) among Thai firms. An analysis of Thailand’s skills system by Chalapati and Chalapati (2020) confirms the shortage of vocationally skilled workers, resulting in labour market shortages. Interviews conducted by the OECD team with Thai government representatives further confirmed the lack of relevant vocational skills, particularly the shortage of skilled technicians and operators in the industrial sector, partly due to impractical VET programs despite attempts to update them (OECD 2021).

Since 2014, the Thai Government has been working on reforming the vocational education and training (VET) system. This effort aims to meet industry needs, enhance productivity, improve graduates’ employment prospects, and better match skills training with labour market demands. The Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) under the Ministry of Education is tasked with establishing standards and curriculum for VET teaching and learning (Australian Government 2020).

According to Chalapati and Chalapati, collaboration between vocational providers and industry is crucial to building a vocationally skilled workforce. They identify five key policies for these: (1) government commitment to expanding the vocationally skilled workforce, (2) fostering collaboration between vocational colleges and industries, (3) enhancing the involvement of private vocational providers, (4) promoting a favourable perception of vocational education, and (5) ensuring the ongoing implementation of policies (Chalapati & Chalapati 2020, 1-2).

2.3       School-in-Factory in the context of collaboration under Tripartite Education system

Due to its close connection with general and academic education and the workforce, vocational education requires collaboration and coordination with other sectors. Effective collaboration and coordination can be attained by involving vocational education in a social dialogue with social partners (Wheelahan & Moodie 2016).

The “School-in-Factory” (SiF) model was established in 2012 in collaboration and coordination between the private company Michelin Co. Ltd., a public agency National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (STI Office) and the Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) with the education sector as implementation actors namely Sattahip Technical College and Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna. The primary purpose of the collaboration was to solve the problem of the shortage of qualified technicians and research engineers, contributing to a decrease in employee turnover and an increase in the country’s productivity (Phalasoon 2017). Meanwhile, the concept of collaboration in the Tripartite education system has been initiated (Moonpa et al. 2021). In other words, SiF is a dual system and Work-integrated Learning approach (Phalasoon 2017). According to the Secretariat of The Senate (2020), Work Integrated Learning is an educational approach that integrates academic learning with practical work experience.

Similar initiatives may exist in Thailand, such as cooperative education, apprenticeships, internships, and fieldwork (iSchool KKU 2019), although the specific details and implementation can vary. These programs aim to bridge the gap between academic learning and practical skills, ultimately better preparing students for the workforce. 

At the higher education level, which includes TVET, work-integrated education is categorized into nine groups. These activities are divided based on the period before entering study, during study, the end of studies, and before graduation. This organization aligns with the guidelines for structuring education integrated with work, considering the relationship with the learning venue: pre-course experience, sandwich course, cooperative education, joint industry-university course, fieldwork, cognitive apprenticeship or job shadowing, placement or practicum, new traineeship or apprenticeship, and post-course internship (Higher Education Network: Upper Southern Division 2018; iSchool KKU 2019).

3        Methodology

This article employed pragmatic content analysis and relevant document analysis. Pragmatic content analysis is a qualitative research method that focuses on analysing textual data to identify patterns, themes, and meanings within the content. It is considered pragmatic because it involves a flexible and adaptable approach to data analysis, allowing researchers to tailor the analysis to the study’s specific research questions and objectives (Ramanadhan et al. 2021).

Figure 1 below presents the results in the form of a summary analysis (Gläser & Laudel 2019; Gläser-Zikuda et al. 2020) by collecting data from field data collection on 7 Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the cooperation of RMUTL, private companies and TVET College between 2013 until present (see Fig.1 below). The content analyzed is divided into (1) Collaboration structure, elements, and concept; (2) Collaboration Objectives; (3) Role and responsibilities; (4) The curriculum (5) Criteria/processes for student selection and participation.

Figure 1: Analysis framework

Table 1: Memorandum of Understanding

We will not mention the government sector because the education and the private sector are the implementation agencies that follow government policy. This approach helped to explore insights into collaborations, partnerships, relationships, and industry linkages between training providers and employers.

4        Findings and discussion

These findings were documentation analysed from 7 Memoranda of Understanding during the period 2013 to 2028 and are divided into: (1) Collaboration structure, elements and concept; (2) Collaboration Objectives; (3) Role and responsibilities; (4) The curriculum; (5) Criteria/processes for student selection and participation.

This section refers to collaboration between Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna and Michelin Siam Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Collaboration A), Collaboration between Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, Nuovo Plus Co., Ltd. and WRENCHRE Special Tools and Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Collaboration B), Collaboration between Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, S.V.S Air Engineering Co., Ltd., and San Kamphaeng Technical College (hereinafter referred to as Collaboration C).

4.1       Collaboration structure, elements, and concept

The collaboration comprises private companies, the education sector represented by Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (RMUTL), and TVET colleges. RMUTL serves as an intermediary liaison between companies, the education sector, and the public policy sector. The concept of collaboration in the “School-in-Factory” or “Tripartite Education System” was initiated in 2012 and implemented in the TVET system in 2013, and it continues to operate in various collaborative forms.

The Tripartite Education System is a collaborative approach involving three primary stakeholders: educational institutions (universities or vocational colleges), companies, and government agencies or relevant public bodies. The SiF concept denotes an educational management system akin to a boarding school, where instructors assume multiple roles. These instructors are referred to as “Research Assistants/Teaching Assistants,” and their primary responsibility is coaching and mentoring.

The collaboration structure is unique to each organization, with RMUTL serving as the central facilitator in coordinating the collaboration between companies and educational institutions. The collaboration management is divided into two main components: 1) collaboration management and 2) curriculum management according to educational regulations and laws. Figure 2 below illustrates the collaboration structure.

Figure 2: Collaboration structure of Tripartite Education System and School-in-Factory (Moonpa & Chaiyong 2021)

The elements of collaboration management comprise:

• Collaboration Managers, whose primary responsibilities involve communication, coordination, and facilitation of collaboration with relevant stakeholders (private companies, TVET colleges, universities, etc.).
• Collaboration Coordinators, who assist the Collaboration Managers.
• Research Assistants/Teaching Assistants, who are graduate students serving as dedicated instructors for the collaboration.
• Participating Students, who are TVET or undergraduate students enrolled in the collaboration.

In the curriculum management aspect, the Curriculum head takes the leadership role in managing teaching and learning processes in accordance with the regulations and laws of education. Consequently, the organizational structure of the three collaborative models employs a functional organizational structure and a matrix organizational structure.

4.2       Collaboration Objectives 

Between 2013 and 2020, the primary objective was to promote deep cooperation between industry and educational institutions to jointly develop technical and technological human resources, including skilled technicians, technologists, and industrial researchers in science and technology fields. The collaboration aimed to strengthen the workforce by producing high-quality personnel who could meet industry demands. The goal was to create and develop models for integrated teaching and work practices in technical and technological workforce development, with the potential for broader implementation to enhance the quality of vocational education.

From 2020 to 2024, the emphasis shifted towards tripartite education management objectives through work-integrated learning approaches. The focus was on fostering research collaborations between companies and universities to develop human resources with learning outcomes and competencies aligned with industry needs.

Initially, the overarching objective was to promote deep cooperation involving public agencies, universities, and industry to create pilot project models for practical implementation in workforce development across all levels, catering to the demands of various industries.

4.3       Role and responsibilities

4.3.1      Public

Between 2013 and 2020, the role of the public sector, represented by the National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (STI office), was to initiate and support the development of technicians, technologists and industry researchers (mentors) to acquire competencies aligned with industry needs. This involved supporting and coordinating cooperation among relevant government agencies, industries and educational institutions. Policy-oriented studies and research were conducted to inform future project expansions. The Office of Vocational Education Commission managed teaching according to agreements, collaborated in curriculum development, established assessment criteria, and evaluated the development of technical and technological personnel.

4.3.2      Private sector 

The private sector’s main responsibilities were preparing work training and learning venues for students, planning, and facilitating integrated learning-work management, collaborating in curriculum development, establishing assessment criteria, evaluating the development of technical personnel, conducting crucial skill development activities for students, such as practical skills training for work purposes, and evaluating work performance.

4.3.3      Education sector 

The Tripartite education system model involved two educational partners: universities and TVET colleges, whose roles and responsibilities were mentioned in Section 4.1. Parties collaborated on curriculum development, assessment criteria, and personnel evaluation, and also planned teaching tools, selected students, developed teaching staff, appointed project leaders, managed teaching, supervised work experiences, and promoted academic, vocational, ethical and moral training. They ensured education quality, supported graduate employment, and evaluated overall performance.

4.4       The curriculum

The curriculum was divided into two levels: (1) at the vocational education level, initially, teaching was managed in the diploma in industrial technology program by a university in collaboration A during 2013 – 2020. In 2022, the dual education system was used in collaboration B and utilizing the diploma in mechatronics and robotics program of OVEC. However, education management was conducted by the university. Additionally, the dual-TVET education system was used in collaboration A also, employing the diploma in mechatronics and robotics program managed by a TVET College alongside education management at the undergraduate level with modern agricultural machinery by the university. This continued in the same manner in 2023. (2) Initially, the mechanical engineering program was used at the graduate level, and electrical engineering was added in 2023.

Creating and developing students to meet industry needs requires a partner well versed in TVET. As a university originating from TVET, RMUTL comprehends the TVET philosophy and maintains a robust connection with industry. Thus, RMUTL is a crucial player in project and curriculum management. 

4.5       Criteria/processes for student selection and participation 

In the initial phase, student selection follows agreements between both parties, but the specific number of students is primarily determined by the company. High school and/or vocational certificate students who are about to graduate are selected through written exams in mathematics, English, and general knowledge. They then undergo interview processes and physical competency tests. This process is carried out in collaboration A and B, where companies and educational institutions work together. For collaboration C, the time for student recruitment and selection has passed, which means the company did not participate in the student selection process.

This shows that the university and company are mainly responsible for initial student selection processes. On the other hand, the company is mainly responsible for demand requirements. In summary, the key aspect is the implementation with industry partners who understand the sector and can focus on developing the entire system of the Tripartite education system or School-in-Factory (SiF). This approach promotes the advancement of TVET college teachers by involving them in collaboration and supporting their development through graduate programs. However, learning from the best practices of the tripartite education system or SiF extends beyond education. It requires understanding the management system, teaching management, teacher training systems, student training systems, student care, and measurement and evaluation. Additionally, it involves continuous improvement to meet the workforce development goals of Thailand 4.0.

5       Recommendations for further development of the Tripartite Education System in Thailand and the ASEAN

Based on a comprehensive analysis of the tripartite education systems implemented in the three distinct SiF collaborations, the three collaborations share similarities in the collaborative theoretical model. They represent a relationship with three partners who focus on a goal with different roles and responsibilities. 

In conclusion, the tripartite education systems implemented in the SiF collaborations demonstrate innovative approaches to bridging the gap between education and industry. Despite challenges, these collaborations have contributed to workforce development, enhanced educational quality, and fostered closer ties between academia and the private sector. Moving forward, continuous evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and adaptation to evolving industry trends will be crucial for sustaining the success of these collaborative models. The following recommendations can be made for further development of the Tripartite Education System in Thailand and the ASEAN region. See Fig. 3 below for recommendations for TES/SiF.

Figure 3: Recommendations for further development of TES/SiF

However, in future, research work should present (a) a more methodological approach to measuring social impact on each sector; (b) an in-depth exploration of how to evaluate the outcome and impact of SiF; (c) an in-depth analysis of costs and benefits would be very useful to students, all partners and a sustainable education system; (d) the tangible benefits of adopting a collaborative working approach.

References

Australian Government: Department of Education, Skills, Employment (2020). Thailand VET Policy Update. Online: https://internationaleducation.gov.au/international-network/thailand/PolicyUpdates-Thailand/Documents/Thailand%20Education%20Policy%20Update_VET_FINAL.pdf (retrieved 20.06.2024).

Chalapati, N. & Chalapati, S. (2020). Building a skilled workforce: Public discourses on vocational education in Thailand. In: International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(1), 67–90. 

Chrislip, D. D. & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.

Chrislip, D. D. (2002). The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook. A Guide for Citizens and Civic Leaders, 1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. 

Dual Vocational Education Center (2017). Guideline for developing training curriculum at the company. Bangkok: Office of the Vocational Education Commission.

Gläser, J. & Laudel, G. (2019). The Discovery of Causal Mechanisms: Extractive Qualitative Content Analysis as a Tool for Process Tracing. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (Forum: Qualitative Social Research), 20, 3, 1-32.

Gläser-Zikuda, M., Hagenauer, G., & Stephan, M. (2020). The Potential of Qualitative Content Analysis for Empirical Educational Research. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (Forum: Qualitative Social Research), 21, 1, 1-20.  

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Inc. Publishers.

Higher Education Network: Upper Southern Division (2018). Guidelines for Work Integrated Education. Bangkok: Office of The Higher Education Commission.

iSchool KKU (2019). Guidelines for Work Integrated Learning. Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University. 

Keast, R. & Mandell, M. (2013). Advancing Collaboration Practice, Fact Sheet 1: What is collaboration. Canberra City: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Online: https://www.aracy.org.au/publication-resources/command/download_file/id/289/filename/Advancing_Collaboration_Practice_-_Fact_Sheet_1_-_What_is_collaboration.pdf (retrieved 20.06.2024).

Luis, M. C. & Hamideh, A. (2008). Concept of collaboration. Hershey: IGI Global. Online: https://www.academia.edu/248756/Concept_of_Collaboration (retrieved 20.06.2024).

Mongkhonvanit, J. (2017). Thailand’s Dual Education System: A Way Forward. In: Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7, 2, 155-167. Online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/HESWBL-09-2016-0067(retrieved 20.06.2024).

Moonpa, N., Chaiyong, P., & Schlattmann, S. (2021). Tripartite Education: a collaborative structure of learning venues conducive to the improvement of TVET system in Thailand. In: TVET@Asia, issue 17, 1-17. Online: http://tvet-online.asia/issue/17-1/tripartite-education-a-collaborative-structure-of-learning-venues-conducive-to-the-improvement-of-tvet-system-in-thailand/ (retrieved 20.06.2024).

OECD (2020). OECD Economic Surveys: Thailand 2020: Economic Assessment. OECD Publishing: Paris.

OECD (2021). Vocational Education and Training in Thailand, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training. Paris: OECD Publishing. Online: https://iloskillskspstorage.blob.core.windows.net/development/resources/4972/cc20bf6d-en.pdf (retrieved 06.06.2023).

Office of Vocational Education Commission (2014). Thailand’s Dual Education. Bangkok: Office of Vocational Education Commission. 

Permpoonwiwat, C. & Chantith, C. (2023). Adaptation of Thai TVET Learning in the Time of the Pandemic for S-Curve and New S-Curve Industries. In: Resilience of Vocational Education and Training in Phases of External Shock – Experiences from the Corona Pandemic in Asian and European Skill Eco Systems, 106-130. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.

Phalasoon, S. (2017). School in Factory (SIF): an approach of Work Integrated Learning in Thailand. In: TVET@Asia, issue 9, 1-11. Online: https://www.tvet-online.asia/issue9/phalasoon_tvet9.pdf (retrieved 21.06.2024).

Ramanadhan, S., Revette, A., Lee, R., & Aveling, E. (2021). Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction. In: Implementation Science Communications, 2, 70. 

The Secretariat of The Senate (2020). Report on the study consideration on education management by Work Integrated Learning: WIL for vocational education by emphasizing the Dual Vocational Education. Bangkok: Bureau of Publishing.  

Wolff, T. (2005). Collaborative Solutions – True Collaboration as the Most Productive Form of Exchange. Leverett: Tom Wolff & Associates. Online: https://www.tomwolff.com/collaborative-solutions-newsletter-summer-05.htm#collaboration (retrieved 20.06.2024).

Wheelahan, L. & Moodie, G. (2016). Global Trends in TVET: A framework for social justice. In: Education International. Online: https://www.academia.edu/30487333/Global_Trends_in_TVET_a_framework_for_social_justice(retrieved 21.06.2024).

Thailand Industry 4.0 aims to develop an economy that is driven by innovation to advance to the level of high-income countries. One factor that would help drive such growth is continuous labour development. The Thai government recognized the significant role of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) in developing a competitive workforce and encouraged its improvement through various strategic policies. This paper discusses a TVET model that seeks to enhance the implementation of a Dual TVET system that involves work-based learning in Thailand through a collaborative structure and the application of action research. The study employed two research methods: relevant document analysis and a semi-structured questionnaire. Seven Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) signed among Tripartite system partners were examined to find out their roles and responsibilities. The semi-structured questionnaire comprised ten open-ended questions and was sent to nine representatives from TVET colleges, companies, and universities to identify their experiences and recommendations for further development. Different roles and responsibilities of partners in the Tripartite education system model (TVET colleges, university, private sector) which are based on participatory management will be discussed in this article. Learning venues of work-based learning, learning activity, learning processes, project evolution and assessment are part of this discussion. Better communication and a common understanding among partners can lead to the meaningful implementation of this project. The cooperative model of different learning venues with the application of action research strengthens the Thai TVET system, as well as contributing to systematic and societal innovation.  

Keywords: Tripartite Education, Learning venues cooperation, Thailand 4.0, Participatory action research in TVET

1        Situation of TVET and perspectives in Thailand

The goal of Thailand Industry 4.0 is to develop an economy that is driven by innovation to advance the nation to the level of high-income countries. To achieve this goal, the Thai government announced the development of ten industries (S-Curve and new S-Curves). These ten industries will transform Thailand’s comparative advantage into competitive advantage through knowledge, technology, and innovation. The first S-Curve industries are: agricultural and biotechnology, next generation automotive, smart electronics, affluent medical and Wellness tourism, and food for the future. The new S-Curve industries include robotics, aviation and logistics, biofuel and biochemical, digital economy, and medical hub. For the first S-Curve, the government promoted innovative improvement and research to keep up with competitive global development and to enhance the five new industries’ capacity to manage future competitiveness. The demand for a knowledgeable and highly skilled workforce in these ten industries cannot currently be supported by the Thai labour market. According to Chalamwong (2019), the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) development plan requires approximately 173,000 people with vocational qualifications but the country is still 32% short of this number. The shortage of high-quality technical and vocational graduates in the service and industrial fields extends to the areas of 1) machine shop mechanics, 2) electrical and electronic technology, 3) mechatronics, 4) mould engineering, and 5) welding (Mongkhonvanit 2017).

Thai’s TVET faces challenges both in terms of quality and quantity. The biggest problems in Thai’s TVET are the quality of vocational teachers and the lack of essential resources and training equipment at TVET Institutes (Chanwit 2014; Rukkiatwong 2016; Subcommittee on vocational education reform 2017). Other challenging issues are 1) learning content and curricula that are not consistent with employability skills, 2) lack of intermediary organization for the expansion of dual vocational training, and 3) ineffective quality assurance at TVET Institutes. One of the recommendations identified by Chanwit (2014) to cope with these problems is to strengthen cooperation between vocational schools and the enterprises.

TVET is a key element of the national agenda for development in Thailand. The following section outlines the structure of the Tripartite system. It employs a collaborative network of different learning venues, companies, university and TVET colleges to foster work-based learning in Thailand.

2        The Tripartite Education System

This section describes theoretical background on learning venue cooperation and explores the general structure of the Tripartite education system, which includes university, TVET colleges and the private sector.

2.1        Theoretical background on learning venue cooperation

Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) in Thailand can play a significant role in developing a competitive workforce (Wattananarong 2012). One of the main supporting factors is the “link between the world of education and the world of work” that can increase the quality and attractiveness of TVET related training (Vroonhof et al. 2017, 3).

This section explains the theoretical background of learning venue cooperation. According to Pätzold (2003), learning venue cooperation is a “technical-organizational and (…) pedagogically based interaction of the teaching and training staff of the learning venues involved in TVET” (Pätzold 2003, 72). The objective of this collaboration is to connect theory and practice across learning venues in order to train qualified learners, and to contribute to the continued improvement of the training programme.

Pätzold (1991) identified four levels of learning venue cooperation: 1) pragmatic understanding of cooperation, 2) practical understanding of cooperation, 3) didactical and methodical aspects of cooperation, 4) educational-theoretical understanding of cooperation.

In 1) pragmatic understanding, cooperation is based on “formal” or administrative requirements on an essential level. This level is prominent in training practice among partners. In 2), practical understanding is based on personal experience derived from problems and challenges. The initially one-sided need for cooperation can always be expanded. This level of cooperation is also popular for training practice. 3) Didactically and methodically founded understanding is based on occupational learning contexts. Motivation is pedagogically guided. Finally, 4) educational-theoretical understanding of cooperation expands on didactic-methodological cooperation with central aspects (e.g., formation of action competence) of educational theories.

Successful training across different learning venues also depends on conditions such as the coordination of learning processes, agreements, and how different learning venues view and understand cooperation. The next section explains the structure of the Tripartite system and the roles of the partners involved.

2.2        The Structure of the Tripartite Education System

The structure of the Tripartite education system model of Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (RMUTL) is shown in figure 1 below, developed from Moonpa et al. (2019, 11). It is divided into private and public (partnership) sectors and the education sector, which includes high schools and TVET colleges respectively. The relationship of the two sectors is primarily driven by university (RMUTL).

Figure 1: Tripartite Education System model (developed from Moonpa et al. 2019)

This Tripartite education system model brings together the roles of each responsible party. Close cooperation between the private sector and the educational sector (including vocational and higher education levels) seeks to develop scientific and technological resources, increase manpower, strengthen innovation and production models, and upgrade the level of technicians and technologists needed to meet demand in the private or industrial sector. So, this public sector should be encouraged to collaborate with each sector to enhance national or Thailand policy (THAILAND 4.0).

The role of scientific research for the development of TVET through the Tripartite education system can help to drive Thailand 4.0 policies forward. With participation from education, private and public sectors, knowledge of work-process based learning can be shared among partners. Information or challenges from the field or companies can be shared with education partners. The education sector can then create a model to solve those problems. Through participatory action, the education model can be implemented to evaluate the impact in actual working contexts.

Action research, according to Bradbury (2015), is a democratic and participative orientation to knowledge creation (Bradbury 2015). Moreover, participatory action research allows joint knowledge production and is therefore relevant to a specific community such as TVET in Thailand. This cycle of action can lead to knowledge innovation that meet the demands of all stakeholders. The figure below shows the interconnection between practice and action research within the Tripartite education system.

Figure 2: Scientific research and development (Kräenbring 2019)

3        Research Method

To understand the structure of the Tripartite education system model through the roles of different learning venues, this study employed a) document analysis and b) a qualitative questionnaire.

3.1        Document Analysis

This method was used to understand the objectives, roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders within the Tripartite education system model and to study the evolution of cooperation between partners, as well as the elements that contribute to this development.

Table 1: List of the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) signed under the Tripartite education system.

3.2        Qualitative questionnaire

The questionnaire helps to better understand the roles and responsibilities, experiences, and recommendations of the stakeholders in the Tripartite education system project. The semi-structured questionnaire is sent to respondents who are representative of different learning venues: TVET colleges, companies and RMUTL. Specifically, there are five respondents from TVET colleges, two representatives from companies and two respondents from university. The semi-structured questionnaire contains 10 open-ended questions.

Data analysis includes 1) preparing the data by putting it into different themes according to the questions: motivation for joining the project, goals and objectives in joining the project, roles and responsibilities, challenges, problems, opportunities, recommendations, opinions on the Tripartite project, 2) comparison of data from each stakeholder, 3) identification of most common or expected answers, surprising elements or ideas, and 4) results presented in the form of quotes.

4        Research findings and outcomes

4.1        Findings from document analysis

Results from the analysis of seven MOUs signed under the Tripartite system from 2013 to 2018 found that the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder had improved constantly. The findings below are separated into two main parts: roles and responsibilities of partners and the evolution of this partnership.

4.1.1       Roles and responsibilities of different parties involved in the Tripartite education system.

The following section explains the roles and responsibilities of education and private sectors.

Role of Education sector

The Tripartite education system model features two educational partners, namely university and TVET colleges. The university is responsible for learners at undergraduate and graduate levels. TVET colleges take responsibility for teaching management on vocational certificate (Por-Wor-Chor) and high vocational certificate levels (Por-Wor-Sor). University will be discussed first, then the roles of the TVET colleges.

RMUTL university focuses on education management, research, academic service and resource development based on science and technology through participatory action research with other partners. Therefore, RMUTL is a key power agent collaborating between the private/public and education sectors. Active collaboration is coordinated by the Industrial Liaison Office and TVET Hub Lanna.

The Industrial Liaison Office (ILO) coordinates between public and private sectors which include state enterprises, public organizations, juristic bodies, partnerships, limited and public companies and the education sector. ILO is also responsible for project and activity management, such as the community of practice (CoP) committee and executive management meetings.

TVET Hub Lanna was established through the Thailand Partnership Initiative, known as Chevron’s Enjoy Science Project. The five-year timeline of this project was to develop Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) and vocational education at TVET colleges. TVET Hub Lanna is a coordination centre for TVET colleges and high schools in the northern region. Additionally, TVET Hub Lanna oversees administrative and academic work (Moonpa et al. 2019, 12), including a seminar project for the Tri-Curriculum Challenge: designing and creating FIRST Tech Challenge (STEM for Robotics) using Project Based Learning (PjBL) with a team of RMUTL lecturers. The aim of this seminar was to put high school teachers’ skills to the test to prepare STEM for TVET classrooms at Prince’s Royal College.

In addition to the Industrial Liaison Office (ILO) and TVET Hub Lanna, universities also play an important role in the development of teachers or facilitators who are expert in higher vocational technology and have extensive practical technical knowledge. Teachers/facilitators who come through this process can act as mentors for TVET colleges, helping to counterbalance TVET colleges’ lack of industrial machinery and instruments or higher technology. They can also contribute to appropriate assessment for learning processes. The university thus plays an important role in the development of the Tripartite education system. RMUTL university has greater freedom and enjoys the flexibility to work with private industries, for example with regard to laws and regulations for educational staff working with private companies and also in conducting action research. (Moonpa et al. 2019, 12).

TVET colleges who grant educational degrees could offer appropriate curricula for the demand sector that align with professional standards of the Thailand Professional Qualification Institute (TPQI). Joint planning and organization of study plans would help to determine the criteria and qualifications of students, enrolling them according to the rules and declarations of vocational colleges and universities. Coordination of teaching/learning management and supervision of educational institutions in the project could also be conducted on a joint basis. Full-time teachers or teachers from vocational colleges could teach in basic professions, specialized professions, field work, internships, and other projects through close collaboration with facilitators. Moreover, TVET colleges also provide experienced teachers to support facilitators in the field of professional education, from the curriculum to teaching and learning, and monitor educational quality in accordance with the standards of the Office of the Vocational Education Commission. TVET colleges have to ensure the adequate provision of qualified staff, not only teachers, trainers and supervisors but also career advisors and coordinators to support cooperation. In addition, TVET colleges have to prepare machines and instruments necessary for basic vocational skills training.

Role of Private sector

To develop new engines of growth, Thailand 4.0 is pivoting to a value-based economy. Industry needs to transform and prepare human resources for this shift. In the Tripartite education system, private companies prepare learning venues for students and teachers or facilitators from the education sector. It also accompanies in-company trainers with industrial experience in their development of competency, academic qualifications, coaching and mentoring skills. In order to produce qualified technicians to meet industrial demand, private companies provide the necessary tools for work based-learning.

Private sector demand has certain problems that need to be solved such as lack of the skilled workers and high turnover rate of the employees. A common goal would help to focus skills development for qualified workers. The private sector takes part in developing action plans to facilitate and prepare for work-based learning arrangements with the education sector. Private companies share the required criteria and levels of competency with vocational colleges and universities in the selection process for students. They evaluate the performance of students and facilitators on site and participate in overall project evaluation. They also create evaluation criteria, assess the skills development of technicians and technologists, and participate in curriculum development.

In addition, the private company provides a support team responsible for taking care of students’ learning progress and their remunerations. They also provide project managers/administrators to coordinate related activities between company and university, resolve conflicts that may occur, and monitor cooperation.

To summarize, the Tripartite education system of RMUTL is at the level of educational-theoretical understanding of cooperation. University has an important role to play in enhancing the dual system of TVET education. Participatory action research has emphasized the dynamic nature of this structure.

4.1.2       Evolution of the Tripartite education system throughout its implementation.

The initial foundation of the Tripartite education system began in 2012 in the pilot project of the Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) by Sattahip Technical College (Thai-Austrian Technical College) together with STI office, Michelin Siam Co., Ltd to implement the dual TVET system in Thailand. During this period, the two universities: KMUTNB and RMUTL were supporting the implementation process. However, the beginning of the Tripartite education system began when the two MOUs signed in May 2013, between 1) National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (STI office), Michelin Siam Co., Ltd., Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (RMUTL), Prince of Songkla University (PSU), and Kasetsart University (KU) and 2) National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (STI office), Office of Vocational Education Commission (OVEC), Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (RMUTL), and Michelin Siam Co., Ltd.,. These two MOUs were signed and agreed by all partners to support the Thai national policy in developing the competencies of human resources based on science, technology and innovation.

The first signed MOU referred to the undergraduate university students in the cooperative education for engineering programme organized at the private companies for at least 10 months. The university provides training courses before the students enter their respective companies. The interesting point for the Tripartite education system is in the second MOU when the School-in-Factory (SiF) project which was mainly established by RMUTL. In this project, the vocational students under the WiL project work at a private company. Thus, RMUTL has been acting as a hub for this cooperation. The contents and expectations with regard to the acquisition of skills in the job, practice, learning development, progress at work, and evaluation of the programme. Coordinators are put in place to work on a more intense level of detail between private companies and university. The private companies support travel budgets for university lecturers who are mentoring the students during training inside the company.

In 2018, RMUTL and Sankamphaeng Technical College conducted a joint educational programme for vocational training in mechatronics. This joint programme was implemented to address manpower demand as detailed in Thailand 4.0 policy. As a demonstration project with learners at vocational certificate level, there are many lessons to be learned for future development in terms of understanding management functions, teaching methods, and communication between organizations. The evolution of the Tripartite system is shown below.

Figure 3: Evolution of the Tripartite Education system at RMUTL (Authors’ own graphic)

The Tripartite education system at RMUTL has shown the improvement in the role and responsibility of each partner. During the first stage of collaboration, roles of individual partners are outlined in the MOU, with each element described in more detail: the arrangement of human resources in each sector, budget contributions from the private sector, budgetary management in the project, learning venues for student and teacher are all on the list. Knowledge of work-based learning and technology from enterprises are transferred to the education sector. Participatory problem-solving via a research-based approach comes to the fore among participants. Curriculum development, evaluation and assessment methods have been developed through the combined effort of partners.

4.2        Findings from the questionnaire

Findings from the questionnaire are categorized into common responses and new ideas. With regard to motivation for joining the project, most of the respondents are motivated to enhance the quality of education, improve the working skills of learners, to learn from the working process, and to establish a partnership with other organizations. One respondent, however, was included in the project on the basis of a policy level agreement.

The objectives of the partners in joining the project are: to create a network in vocational education for learners, to develop curriculum & teaching and learning activities, to share teaching and learning resources including personnel, facilities and training equipment, to support the improvement of education, and to recruit employees who match the field of work.

Respondents to the questionnaire see the roles and responsibilities of partners in the project as follows: to offer guidance and support to learners during their training, teach learners in cooperation with other partners, train basic technical skills, provide human resource support, and manage budgets according to Ministry of Education policy.

Challenges faced during implementation were reported by respondents as follows: 1) teaching and training learners to be qualified according to the demands of the labour market, 2) recruiting learners to work later in the company, 3) the alignment of training with institutional regulations, establishing frameworks for collaboration, communication with partners, and other common activities.

Meanwhile, the most common problems are: 1) unclear communication and collaboration among the partners, 2) partners do not understand their roles and responsibilities, 3) difficulties in supporting learners during their training at companies that are sometimes located across multiple sites, and 4) lack of social welfare.

Opportunities arising from participation in the programme are: 1) the ability to train learners according to specific needs and demands, 2) development of the required skills of the learners, and 3) strengthening positive relationships with private companies and TVET colleges.

Partners in the project recommended that 1) there should be more communication among partners (including parents) to create a common understanding, planning and shared goals, 2) the government should further expand such kind of education model, and 3) there should be more financial support, social welfare, and a secured job position.

Finally, opinions toward the Tripartite education project are: 1) the Tripartite education system can support the implementation of work-based learning that requires cooperation with TVET colleges and private companies, 2) it is a good project for learners and it can support the development of manpower according to labour market demand, and 3) through this collaboration, learners gain their competencies and partners can develop a competency-based curriculum.

The table below shows the responses from the questionnaire under different themes.

Table 2: Responses categorized into different themes

5        Experiences, conclusion, and recommendations

Based on the analysis of the seven MOUs signed under the Tripartite education system from 2013 to 2018, it can be concluded that practical collaboration and the implementation thereof are the defining principles to emerge. The objectives, roles and responsibilities of each sector to be managed in the collaborative process include learning activity, learning venues, timelines, regulation, modification and abrogation.

Based on the data gleaned from the questionnaire, all partners showed strong motivation to develop and intensify partnerships that can support learners’ competencies through work-based learning processes. Clear communication and common understanding among partners still represent the main challenges facing the Tripartite education project. Nevertheless, partners found that this collaborative programme can develop required skills for learners. In addition, it can bring partnerships closer together.

5.1        Experiences and lesson learned from implementing the Tripartite partnership

• Laws and regulations concerning the minimum age of learners to take part in the training at the private companies. In the Sankamphaeng model, partners support learners through their respective resources: for example, a university provides training at a mechatronics laboratory and teachers from different vocational colleges teach basic technical skills. However, the average age of the learners at vocational certificate level is 16-18 years. Below the age of 18, working in a company is not allowed.
• Some partnerships signed the MOU first and implemented cooperation later. This was the case with the MOU signed between 1) Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (RMUTL) Chiangrai Industrial and Community Education College (CRIC) and 2) Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (RMUTL) and Phrae College of Agriculture and Technology (PCAT). The two MOUs were both signed on 26 October 2018. However, CRIC activities were implemented before PCAT, due to the fact that the CRIC project team was already prepared to support learners in the programme.

In summary, it can be said that the collaborative structure of the Tripartite education system enhances the quality of TVET in Thailand. As one of the respondents stated: “it is a good project for learners and it can support the development of manpower according to the demands of the labour market”. Nevertheless, another respondent suggested that “the government should expand this kind of education model further.”

This study is based solely on findings from partners in the Tripartite education system, including TVET colleges, private companies and RMUTL university. Other important partners such as learners and their parents were not included. In future research work, the scope of respondents could be widened to include opinions from learners and parents.

References

Bradbury, H. (2015). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research (Third edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Chalamwong, S. (2019). TDRI indicates a shortage of vocational workers for the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC). Bangkok: Thai Post. Online: https://www.thaipost.net/main/detail/31237 (retrieved 16.06.2021).

Chanwit, P. (2014). Problems of Thai vocational education system (translated by author) Online: http://pokpong.org/writing/vocational-education/ (retrieved 16.06.2021).

Kenan Foundation Asia. (2021). Chevron Enjoy Science – Improving Thailand’s Education Online: https://www.enjoy-science.org/en (retrieved 17.06.2021).

Kräenbring, R. (2019). Work-related learning and vocational pedagogy: Research Workshop on work-related learning and research on vocational pedagogy, July 2019, Chiangmai, Thailand.

Mongkhonvanit, J. (2017). Thailand’s Dual Education System: A Way Forward, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. Emerald Publishing Limited, 7, 2, 155-167. Online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/HESWBL-09-2016-0067 (retrieved 04.10.2021).

Moonpa et al. (2019). Approaches and Structures of Work-related Learning in TVET in Thailand. In: TVET@Asia, issue 13, 1-19. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue9/author_second_tvet9.pdf (retrieved 17.06.2021).

Pätzold, G. (1991). Lernortkooperation. Pädagogische Perspektive für Schule und Betrieb. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Wirtschaft und Pädagogik. 6, 11, 37-49.

Pätzold, G. (2003). Lernfelder – Lernortkooperationen. Neugestaltung beruflicher Bildung. In: Dortmunder Beiträge zur Pädagogik, Volume 30. Bochum: Projekt-Verlag.

Rukkiatwong, N. (2016). Vocational Training reform in Thailand. Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). Online: https:// tdri.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nuthasid-vocational-education-v02_2.pdf (retrieved 16.06.2021).

Subcommittee on vocational education reform (2017). Policy recommendations for solving problems of vocational education. Online: https://www.matichon.co.th/education/news_ 493225 (retrieved 16.06.2021).

Vroonhof et al. (2017). Business cooperating with vocational education and training providers for quality skills and attractive futures. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 1-139.  

Wattananarong, K. (2012). The importance and factors related to vocational education. Online: https://www.thairath.co.th/content/237956 (retrieved 11.06.2021).