Curriculum development and lessons learned from the 40th anniversary of the 1973 uprising

My hypothesis is that students were shaped and learned to have a freedom mindset during the popular uprising of October 14, 1973 until their roles were completely shut down by the massacre of October 6, 1976 at Thammasat University.

To understand the history of the nation, I personally think it is worth understanding the curriculum development of basic education. Indeed, we should also examine thoroughly the history of education that framed the thought process of students from 1973-76.

Generally speaking, the aim of education is to shape the future generation and to train them for their future professions.A curriculum is a framework that transfers subject matter and various skills to the next generation via intentional and unintentional classroom knowledge and activities. This is the process that cultivates values and wisdom into our students.

It is worth exploring and comparing the curriculum systems of 1960 and 1978, whether the former was designed with contents for students to have more liberal thinking and the latter was designed to control cultural and social beliefs, in particular the political aspects. For some, students had “too much” of a “freedom mindset” during the 1973-76 demonstrations, so government officials may have wanted to reform the curriculum. The result was control of the content in the basic education curriculum of 1978.

Although the government had good intentions in shaping students to be better human beings and citizens, it still felt afraid of students’ liberal perspectives. So, we, in turn, controlled content in the subjects of local geography, society and culture in the 1978 curriculum.

According to the Basic Education curriculum of 1978, “the aim was for learners to be able to develop themselves and to know about the changes in society, able to do things beneficial to society according to their capability. 

The curriculum was developed for learners to gain experience in knowledge, skills, process and attitude, and desirable values”¨ This was completely controlled by the government’s policies and beliefs, I think.
The government may have unintentionally aimed to limit students’ skills and values according to social norms, duties and roles for their social involvement.

On the other hand, it also aimed to promote understanding of rapid changes and general social requirements, especially the development of self-reliance and appropriate application of technology for a better quality of life.

In fact, it is necessary to understand the components of the learning process of basic curriculum design for either formal education or informal education, as well as to have an insight into the contents in detail.

The course curriculum and content is aimed at training in a specific knowledge that concerns both values and academics. Schools or universities have set up a methodology to teach content that will benefit society, though they felt the need to hinder some “freedom knowledge” by the government sometimes.

Yet, this is also a tool of governments to control their citizens’ minds.
In regard to the October 14, 1973 movement, students had earned themselves a political voice because of the free mind· of society, too.

In other words, I personally think that people supported the student demonstrations because they all had their thoughts framed by the same curriculum from the year 1960.

To sum up, I do believe that we need to clearly understand the role of education reform and curriculum design in order to form the future generation.
It is crucial for students to use knowledge to find a job that suits their preferences, skills and interests.
A curriculum is not just a tool for political reform, but also a way to help empower people.

PRIYAKORN PUSAWIRO
Learning scientist
Computer Engineering Department
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
[email protected]