News & Event :

MOU Signing Ceremony: CENTRAL MOU Signing Ceremony: CENTRAL GROUP&MSME/ACCSC On 26th October 2015, Martin de Tours School of Management... More detail
Cooperative Education Competition:... Cooperative Education Competition: Congratulations to Ms. Monthira Batch2 Cooperative Education Competition: Congratulations... More detail
MOU Signing Ceremony: SUKOSOL hotels,... MOU Signing Ceremony: SUKOSOL hotels, OSOTSPA, TARNTANA & ACCSC Assumption University : 15 MAY 2015 ACC School of Commerce conducted MOU signing ceremony... More detail
Srithai Superware Plc: 2 New Job... Srithai Superware Plc: 2 New Job Positions Available! รับสมัครพนักงานบ... More detail

Small Classroom Observation: by Martin Adamcik

Small Classroom Observation: On the Influence which Computer Based Presentations Have on the Exam Results of BG0220 Basic Mathematics by Martin Adamcik
Abstract: In this short article we document some data which support the hypothesis that the introduction of computer presentations as a main tool for teaching the BG0220 Basic Mathematics course has a statistically significant positive influence on the exam results of students.
1. Background
1.1. Setting. In this experiment, two teachers teaching the BG0220 Basic Mathematics course supplied the results of their students from two exams, we denote them here as exam 1 and exam 2. We believe that the students have been assigned to both teachers randomly, from the pool of all first year students. Exam 1 took place in the quarter of semester 1/2014 and exam 2 took place in the middle of the semester. In each occasion, exactly the same exam under exactly same conditions was given to students of both teachers. Exams 1 and 2 focused on fairly different topics of basic mathematics however they have been related. Before exam 1 took place, both teachers, say A and B, had been using aboard style teaching. After exam 1 the teacher A continued using the board style teaching while the teacher B switched to computer based presentations.
1.2. Hypotheses. Prior to the experiment, we had the following hypotheses
 (1) When both teachers A and B use a board, they convey the study material to students with the same efficiency.
 (2) After the teacher B switched to the presentation based teaching, the teacher B conveys the study material to students more efficiently than the teacher A.
2. Observations
 2.1. Exam 1. The maximal score for exam 1 was 18 points. The following is the descriptive statistics of the results provided by teachers where N denotes the sample sizes.
Teacher N   Mean Stand Deviation Minimum Maximum
  A      166    7.18301    3.01314           1.13       16.13
  B       70     7.21971    4.09300           0.00       16.50
The means appear to be fairly similar; this supports our hypothesis 1. Let us however analyse these samples of students more closely. First, the analysis shows that both samples are approximately normally distributed. The variances however appear to be unequal. Can we claim that teachers affect the variance of the exam results so the difference above is not just a statistically expected fluctuation? The F-test for equality ofvariance gives the following result.
Equality of Variances
Method  Num DF    Den DF    F Value     Pr > F
 Folded F    69           165          1.85        0.0016
Since 0.0016 < 0.05, with 95% confidence we can say that the teachers affect the variance of exam 1 results. Now we investigate whether we can reject the hypothesis that the two teaching styles (both using a board at this stage) lead to the same mean score from exam 1 with 90% confidence by the two sample t-test. Since the two teaching styles lead to different variances, we use the Welch-Satterthwaite formula and the Welch t-test.
Method        Variances    DF       t Value         Pr > |t|
Satterthwaite   Unequal    101.92     0.07             0.9462
0.9462 > 0.1 so we certainly cannot reject that the two teaching styles lead to the same mean score. This alone does not imply that the two teaching styles actually lead to the same mean score from exam 1, we have only failed to reject it. However, it is another supportive argument for our hypothesis 1.
Note that the hypothesis 1 is different to the hypothesis we tried to rejectin the two sample t-test. It concerns with ability to convey which may not fully coincide with exam results. This is illustrated by the fact that the data support the claim that the teaching styles lead to different variances so the ability to convey may be different for the two teachers concerned. Perhaps the teacher B focuses more on brighter students which leads to their better results while other students are left behind.
2.2. Exam 2. In the investigation of exam 2 and hypothesis 2 we assume 
The maximal score for exam 2 was 30 points. The following is the descriptive statistics of the results provided by teachers where N denotes the sample sizes.
Teacher N     Mean    Stand Deviation   Minimum   Maximum
   A       147   11.85714     5.14049           1.00         27.00
   B        59    13.87288      6.61802           0.50         26.00
The means appear to be different this time. Both data sets appear to be normally distributed. Standard deviations above normalised to the score 18 are 3.0843 and 3.9708 which are not much different to the standard deviations measured for exam 1 (3.0131 and 4.0930 respectively). Unsurprisingly, the F-test for equality of variance gives:
Equality of Variances
Method   Num DF    Den DF       F Value    P r > F
 Folded F     58             146            1.66       0.0163
Since 0.00163 < 0.05, with 95% confidence we can say that the teachers affect the variance of exam 2 results.
Let us now verify, whether we can reject the hypothesis that the two teaching styles (one using a board and another computer presentations)lead to the same mean score from exam 2 with 95% confidence by the two sample t-test. We use again the Welch-Satterthwaite formula and the Welch t-test.
Method         Variances     DF          t Value        P r > |t|
 Satterthwaite    Unequal      87.453         2.10           0.0387
0.0387 < 0.05 so with 95% confidence we can reject the hypothesis that the two teaching styles lead to the same mean score from exam 2. So what conclusion can we make about our initial hypothesis 2?
Assuming hypothesis 1, while the teaching styles employing a board of both teachers led to the same performance in exam 1, the performance of students of the teacher B was significantly improved in exam 2 in comparison to the teacher A. Since the introduction of computer presentations by the teacher B was the only significant change, this supports the statement of
3. Conclusion
3.1. Results. Our data support the claim that the introduction of computer presentations as a main tool for teaching the BG0220 Basic Mathematics course has a statistically significant positive influence on the exam results
3.2. Discussion. Although our data support hypothesis 2, the explanation that the improvement was solely down to the introduction of the presentation style teaching might not be correct. While the teacher B was trying to introduce a new style of teaching, this teacher might have unwittingly improved other aspects of teaching too. If the experiment were repeated with more teachers involved, the results would be more convincing. In particular, the difference in variances for both exams shows that the teaching styles could indeed be different in some other aspects than only whether a board or presentations were used. If the teacher B really focused only on clever students as we have speculated before, then those students would certainly benefit more from the change in style of teaching which could explain the change in the mean.
Secondly, a closer look on the data of the teacher B unveils that out of two classes from which the data were produced, one improved exceptionally, while the second one improved only mildly. There might be something behind such an exceptional improvement which was out of the control of this experiment. More robust data could eliminate bias by extraordinary inputs.
Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics, Assumption Uni-
versity, MSME Building, 4th Floor, 88 Moo 8 Bang Na-Trad Km. 26
Bangsaothong, 10540 Samuthprakarn, Thailand
E-mail address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Cooperative Education Sharing

This Co-Operative Education Seminar and meeting is a 1-day collaboration program. It was located at Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University.


In the morning session, all the participants received the training documents which include cooperative education handbook created by Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University, the standard and quality assurance of the cooperative education, the corporate’s manual in tax claiming, and the speakers’ presentation slides.


The first part of the seminar was about the benefits that the corporate companies receive from joining Cooperative Education Program. The guest speakers are the representatives from Central Group and Belton industrial (Thailand) ltd. 

They extended the benefits of the cost-saving and personnel quality improvement from Cooperative Education. Obviously the 16-weeks of Cooperative Education can train and shape the students to be excellent future employee. 

Both guest speakers also mentioned Cooperate Education as the corporate’s chance of giving back to the society. 


The latter part of seminar was about Thai labor law. Ajarn Paiboon clarified about the Cooperative Education standard and how to apply to Thai labor law. 
During the presentation, there were small case-studies about outsourcing and Thai labor management. 


In the afternoon, the representatives of the universities in North-Central Thailand gathered for meeting. Asst.Prof. Dr. Sommai Pivsa-Art is the chairperson. There are 44 universities in North-Central Thailand as the members. More than 30 members participated in this meeting on that day. 


From these 44 universities, there were 4 small groups. Each group sent the representatives to present and update the Cooperative Education news from each university. It was a good chance of knowledge and opinion sharing between universities. The group leaders also had gathered and updated the Cooperative Education information from each university such as the number of programs, students, advisors. 


For the closing remark, the chairperson thanked all the members for joining the meeting. He also promoted the members to join more Cooperative Education activities and meetings. The upcoming one will be the seminar about Work-integrated Learning (WiL) at Vongchavalitkul University, Nakhonratchasima. 


Journal Articles



                 When the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) evolves from the ASEAN community, it is expected to become a single market and thus will be more demanding of trade flow within the region, in 2015. At that time logistics businesses will gain prominence and become necessary for competition in the market.  During the period of 2012 to present, Myanmar economic policies have begun, and continue to change and develop towards the open market; the foreign investors are welcomed and the foreign investment looks to increase. Thus, Myanmar is the most potential market in AEC community. This paper compares government and private logistics businesses in Myanmar which is denoted as military regime country; contrasting brand, service quality, price, customer satisfaction and loyalty towards Myanmar Express Mail Service (EMS) and DHL companies within the proposed framework. Self-administrated questionnaire research was conducted in person or through online processes and the gathered data were analyzed using the SPSS program. This paper’s finding provides an empirical assessment to the owners and managers who are interested in logistics and transportation businesses in Myanmar and who seek to enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty.

 Key words: Brand, Customer Satisfaction, Logistics, Loyalty, Myanmar, Service Quality

 Paper type: Research paper




Being a lecturer, one of our responsibilities is to encourage students to get involved in class. In MGT 3907 Business Communication Subject, Oral presentation chapter. TOASTMASTER ACTIVITY was introduced. The objectives of this activity are; to enhance learning atmosphere in the classroom, to motivate students to participate more in class, to boost self-­‐confidence and improve their public speaking skills and to build a camaraderie in the team. This activity must have seven
significant roles:

1. Emcee

2. Table Topic Master

3. Quotation Master

4. Jokes Master

5. Grammarian

6. AH counter

7. Evaluator

Given the seven roles, students must be able to brainstorm and assigned members of the group to any role. The Emcee should act like a real master of ceremony. The duty of the Table Topic Master is to deliver a speech spontaneously within 5 minutes could be of any topic. Quotation Master should be able to give a quotation in the class that is somehow interesting. Jokes Master should give a joke that is worth laughing for or else, its not gonna be a joke. The Grammarian should count any grammatical errors that the Table Topic Master encountered. AH counter will count how many expressions used unconsciously by the Table Topic Master. The duty of the Evaluator is to give a comment to all the speakers, could be gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, assertiveness  and etc.


LegetøjBabytilbehørLegetøj og Børnetøj