Skip to content

SCEE / METHODOLOGY

Methodology

Explore the five dimensions, indicators and evidence used to understand school readiness.

Here A–E denote dimensions, not recognition levels.

DIMENSION A / SCEE 2026

Infrastructure & Equipment

Review equipment, connectivity, safety, maintenance and accessible design.

A

Weight 20%Dimension maximum 4Listed indicators 5

A1Number of smart classrooms

Count equipped classrooms against all classrooms; provide plans or inventory records.

Concise evidence-preparation guidance. Use the full manual for official wording and scoring descriptors.

A2Availability of core equipment

Check installed, usable equipment with photos or a checklist.

Concise evidence-preparation guidance. Use the full manual for official wording and scoring descriptors.

A3Network and internet infrastructure

Document coverage, speed and network stability.

Concise evidence-preparation guidance. Use the full manual for official wording and scoring descriptors.

A4Electrical safety and maintenance

Document electrical safety, maintenance plans and inspection records.

Concise evidence-preparation guidance. Use the full manual for official wording and scoring descriptors.

A5Accessibility and universal design

Review display placement, room layout and accessibility.

Concise evidence-preparation guidance. Use the full manual for official wording and scoring descriptors.

Open the full criteria in the manual

The 2026 manual lists 28 indicators, while some formula text specifies five per dimension. This checklist prepares evidence only. Contact the secretariat for the assessment calculation procedure.

READINESS, NOT A LEAGUE TABLE

Assessment recognition levels

Each level describes a starting point and development opportunity, not a ranking between schools.

A

Exemplary

17.00–20.00 / 20

B

Advanced

13.00–16.99 / 20

C

Developing

9.00–12.99 / 20

D

Basic

5.00–8.99 / 20

E

Participating

0.00–4.99 / 20

Assessment levels: manual p. 17 · Contact the secretariat for certification and award details.

EVIDENCE INTO PRACTICE

Technology matters.
When learning changes.

What does the research tell us—and what can schools test?
Choose a topic to explore the finding, context and limitations.

Evidence library

PNAS · 2014

Active learning: from listening to thinking

Undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics

Freeman et al. report average failure rates of 33.8% with lecturing and 21.8% with active learning, and a mean examination effect of 0.47 SD.

From research to a classroom experiment

Pilot think–pair–share and short before/after questions; track how many pupils respond and explain their reasoning.

What the evidence does—and does not—show

This is not a test of interactive displays or Thai school pupils. It informs teaching design, not a guaranteed device or SCEE effect.

Average course failure rate67 studies reporting failure outcomes

Traditional lecture33.8%

Active learning21.8%

0%50%100%

−12.0 percentage points

Pooled meta-analysis, not one school’s pre/post outcome and not an SCEE result.

External research evidence—not SCEE school outcomes or a guarantee of impact from installing equipment.