Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
e-Learning in School Education in Hong Kong: An Evaluation of 11 Case Studies
Professor Kong Siu Cheung
Head of Department of Mathematics and Information Technology Director of Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology The Hong Kong Institute of Education Hong Kong
Outline ● Part 1: Introduction
● Part 2: What lessons learned on e-Learning pedagogical practices in 11 case studies?
● Part 3: What lead to practical teacher development in the project cases?
● Part 4: What important factors could be identified from the partnerships with different stakeholders?
● Part 5: Conclusion & Recommendations
Part 1: Introduction
Outline Framework of the Study l A four-level research framework with a series of indicators
l Based on the ecological systems suggested by Bronfenbrenner (1994) and Gu
(2006)
Research Questions (i) What are the patterns of e-Learning adopted by the pilot schools in the case pilot projects? (ii) What are the models of teacher development and school change
adopted by the pilot schools in the case pilot projects? (iii) What are the structures of partnership with different stakeholders
adopted by the pilot schools in the case pilot projects?
● To examine the e-Learning benefits achieved and lessons learnt at both school and system levels in the 11 project cases (5 singleton and 6 cluster schools)
● multiple-case study approach to grasp a holistic understanding from different levels
● Data collection instruments: 1) focus group interviews with various target groups, 2) class observation, 3) post-lesson observation interviews with individual subject teacher and
students, 4) lesson plans, 5) teaching materials, 6) class videos and questionnaire surveys for teachers, students and parents, and 7) pre- and post- tests results on selected topics
Research design, data collection and analysis - Introduction
Research design, data collection and analysis - Interviews
● Interviews with leading teachers and senior management staff
● Focus group interviews with students and parents → to understand e-Learning implementation in 23 pilot schools
● Focus group interviews with subject teachers in 11 coordinating schools
● 3 sessions focus group interviews with business and tertiary education partners → to study their roles on e-Learning in schools
● All interview data were transcribed into written Chinese and then summarized in English
Details of semi-structured focus group interviews with school senior management and leading teachers in coordinating schools
Project case Date Roles of interviewees Number of
interviewees Duration
S10 Sep 2013
Principal, Two Vice Principal, IT Coordinator, Chinese Panel Head 5 210 min
S20 Sep 2013
Principal, Curriculum Development Officer, Visual Arts Panel, IT Coordinator cum General Studies Panel, Mathematics Panel Head
5 210 min
S30 Sep 2013
Principal, IT Coordinator cum Mathematics Panel, e-Learning Project Manager, Integrated Science teacher, Integrated Science Panel, English Vice Panel Head
6 225 min
S40 Sep 2013
Principal, IT Coordinator, IT Committee member, Integrated Humanities Subject Panel Head
4 180 min
S50 Sep 2013
Principal, Vice Principals 3 195 min
C11 Jul 2013
Principal, IT Coordinator, IT Panel Head 3 208 min
C21 Aug 2013
Principal, IT Coordinator, Chinese Panel Head, Mathematics Panel Head 4 225 min
C31 Sep 2013
Principal, IT Coordinator, Chinese Panel Head 3 210 min
C41 Jul 2013
Principal, IT Coordinator, English Panel Head 3 227 min
C51 Sep 2013
Principal, IT Panel Head, Liberal Studies Panel 3 180 min
C61 Sep 2013
Principal, Project Coordinator, Curriculum Development Officer, Chinese Panel Head, Personal, Social and Humanities Education Panel Head, IT Coordinator
6 240 min
Total 45 2310 min
Details of semi-structured focus group interviews with school senior management and leading teachers in partnership schools
Project case Date Roles of interviewees Number of
interviewees Duration
C22 Jun 2014
Principal, e-Learning Coordinator, Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD), IT Coordinator, Two Mathematics Panel Head, Chinese Panel Head
7 101 min
C32 Mar 2014
Principal, Project Coordinator, Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD), Chinese Panel Head, Putonghua Panel Head, IT Coordinator
6 147 min
C33 Oct 2013
Principal, Project Manager cum Chinese Panel Head, Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD), IT Coordinator
4 146 min
C34 Nov 2013
Principal, Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD), General Studies Vice Panel Head cum Project Coordinator
3 142 min
C35 Mar 2014
Principal, Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD), Technical Support Staff (TSS) 3 120 min
C36 Nov 2013
Principal, Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD), IT Coordinator cum Project Manager 3 131 min
C42 Jan 2014
Principal, Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching), IT Coordinator, English Panel Head, Biology teacher
5 140 min
C43 Jan 2014
Principal, Vice Principal (Academics Facilitator), English Panel Head, IT Coordinator 4 136 min
C44 Mar 2014
Principal, English Panel Head, IT Coordinator 3 136 min
C52 Oct 2013
Principal, Liberal Studies Panel Head, IT Coordinator 3 136 min
C53 Jan 2014
Principal, Vice Principal, Liberal Studies teacher, TSSC, Head of Department (Liberal Studies), Project consultant
6 165 min
C54 Feb 2014
Deputy Principal (Project Facilitator), Project Coordinator cum Liberal Studies teacher, IT Coordinator, Liberal Studies Panel Head
4 120 min
Total 51 1620 min
Details of semi-structured focus group interviews with front line subject teachers after lesson observation
Project case Date Roles of interviewees Number of
interviewees Duration
S10 Feb 2014
Project coordinator; Mathematics Panel Head, Chinese Panel Head, English Panel Head, General Studies Panel Head; Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD); IT Coordinator
8 132 min
S20 Dec 2013
Visual Arts Panel Head, General Studies Panel Head, Mathematics Panel Head; General Studies Subject Teacher, Visual Arts Subject Teacher; Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD); IT Coordinator
7 150 min
S30 May 2014
Integrated Science Subject Teacher, Mathematics Subject Teacher; IT Coordinator 4 60 min
S40 Nov 2013
Principal; Integrated Humanities Panel Head, Liberal Studies Panel Head; Integrated Humanities teacher; IT Coordinator
4 60 min
S50 May 2014
Two Vice Principal 2 52 min
C11 Jan 2014
Project coordinator; Mathematics Panel Head, English Panel Head; Mathematics Subject Teacher
3 90 min
C21 Jun 2014
Two Chinese Subject Teacher; IT Panel Head 3 86 min
C31 Mar 2014
Chinese Panel Head; Chinese Subject teacher; Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD) 3 67 min
C41 Feb 2014
English Panel Head; Two English Subject Teacher 3 69 min
C53 Jan 2014
Liberal Studies Panel Head; Liberal Studies Subject Teacher 2 55 min
C61 Mar 2014
Project Coordinator; Personal, Social and Health Education Panel Head, Chinese Panel Head; Curriculum Development Officer (PSMCD); IT Coordinator
5 107 min
Total 44 928 min
Details of semi-structured focus group interviews with students after lesson observation
Project case Date Level of Study Number & Gender of interviewees Duration
S10 Feb 2014 Primary 6 2 F 43 min Primary 5 2 F 34 min Primary 4 2 F 42 min
S20 Dec 2013 Primary 5 3 F, 2 M 40 min S30 May 2014 Secondary 3 1 F, 5 M 45 min S40 Nov 2013 Secondary 3 5 F 60 min S50 May 2014 Mixed 3 F, 3 M 14 min C11 Jan 2014 Primary 6 3 M, 1 F 48 min C21 Jun 2014 Primary 4 2 M, 4 F 44 min
C31 Mar 2014 Primary 5 1 M, 2 F 31 min Primary 5 1 M, 2 F 33 min
C41 Feb 2014 Secondary 1 2 F 28 min Secondary 1 2 F 32 min Secondary 1 2 F 28 min
C53 Jan 2014 Secondary 5 1 M, 4 F 67 min C61 Mar 2014 Junior Secondary 3 M, 1 F 19 min
Total 61 608 min
Details of semi-structured focus group interviews with vendors and tertiary education sectors
Vendor Focus Group Date Sector & Number of
Organizations Number of interviews Duration
Focus Group I Feb 2014 Education publishers: 3 5 123 min Content providers: 1 1
IT commercial vendors: 4 8 Focus Group II Mar 2014 Education publishers: 1 2
216 min Content providers: 2 5 IT commercial vendors: 4 5 Tertiary education institutions: 1 1
Focus Group III Apr 2014 IT commercial vendors: 2 3 138 min Tertiary education institutions: 3 4
Total 21 34 477 min
Research design, data collection and analysis - Questionnaire surveys & Class observation
● Questionnaire Surveys: ● for teachers, students, and parents
→ to measure their attitudes and perception on e-Learning
● Class Observation: ● 11 pilot schools
● lesson plans
● lessons videotaped
● class observation protocol [adapted from Ertmer et al. (2012)]
● post-lesson teacher and student reflections
→ to collect opinions on the rationale and effectiveness of the lessons concerned
Details of class observations in 11 project cases Project
case Date Level of Study and Subject e-Learning topics Duration
S10 Feb 2014 P5 Mathematics Simple equations 50 min S20 Dec 2013 P5 Mathematics Areas of trapezium 60 min
S30 May 2014 S3 Mathematics Solving real-life problems using trigonometric ratios 60 min
S40 Nov 2013 S3 Integrated Humanities Global warming and solutions 80 min
S50 May 2014 Mixed grades Chinese Language (For dyslexics)
Reading comprehension, vocabulary and application, rearrangement of sentences and paragraphs
45 min
C11 Jan 2014 P6 Mathematics Calculation of circumference 70 min
C21 Jun 2014 P4 Chinese (Enrichment) Reading drama scripts, role-play, Six Thinking Hats 40 min
C31 Mar 2014 P3 Chinese Personification, collaborative writing 75 min
C41 Feb 2014 S1 English Reading comprehension, Six Thinking Hats 80 min
C53 Jan 2014 S5 Liberal Studies Community and political affairs 65 min
C61 Mar 2014
S2 Personal, Social and Humanities Education (For mild to moderate intellectual disability)
The role of the Great Wall of China 45 min
Total 670 min
Details of semi-structured post-class observation interviews
Project case Date Interviewee Duration
S10 Feb 2014 Mathematics Panel Head 22 min S30 May 2014 Mathematics Subject Teacher 6 min S40 Jan 2014 Integrated Humanities Subject Teacher 7 min S50 May 2014 Chinese Subject Teacher/ Vice Principal 24 min C11 Jan 2014 Mathematics Panel Head 28 min C21 Jun 2014 Chinese Panel Head 18 min C31 Mar 2014 Chinese Subject Teacher 23 min C41 Feb 2014 English Subject Teacher 19 min C53 Jan 2014 Liberal Study Subject Teacher 10 min C61 Mar 2014 Personal, Social & Humanities Education Panel Head 46 min
Total 203 min
Research design, data collection and analysis – Pre- and post- tests & Content analysis
● Pre- and post- tests results: ● on selected topics collected from 7 of these schools
→ to quantitatively measure students’ learning outcomes ● the rest submitted teacher reflections on students’ performance change
before and after the e-Learning classroom practices ● Content analysis and cross-case analysis: (a) preliminary exploratory analysis → to obtain an understanding of the data of
each case;
(b) categorizing strategies → to code categories in each case related to the research questions; and
(c) cross-case analysis → to compare and contrast the findings across all cases
Part 2: What lessons learned on e-Learning pedagogical practices in 11 case studies?
Key findings on Patterns of e-Learning ● Study on actual classroom practices in 11 pilot schools – S10 & S20
S10 students doing online Math exercise on SharePoint
S20 students having Math class on area of parallelogram
Key findings on Patterns of e-Learning ● Study on actual classroom practices in 11 pilot schools – C21 & C31
C21 student receiving task instructions on e-Platform
C21 students sound acting a script
C31 students capturing pictures to be placed in their writing compositions
Key findings on Patterns of e-Learning ● Study on actual classroom practices in 11 pilot schools – S30 & S40
S30 students measuring angle of elevation with iPad
S40 students conducting group discussion on global warming
Key findings on Patterns of e-Learning ● Study on actual classroom practices in 11 pilot schools – C41 & C53
C53 LS teacher showing students' opinions on the e-Discussion forum
C41 students doing pair discussion on pros and cons of Kindle
Key findings on Patterns of e-Learning • Class observation protocol derived from Ertmer et al. (2012)
Case Study C31 – Primary 3 Chinese Language
n Topic:⼩小⾬雨點旅⾏行記 (The Journey of the Rain—Writing Composition with Personification Skills )
n 2 sessions: 70 min
Case Study C31– Lesson Objectives and Skills Development
n Lesson objectives: 1) to enhance students’ ability in distinguishing sentences of personification
2) to provide students an opportunity to compose stories
3) to learn to work with peers in groups and understand the use of connectives in-between paragraphs through collaboration
4) to enhance language ability via peer assessment
n Skills development: 1) writing skills
2) personification skills
3) collaboration skills
Case Study C31 – Belief n iPad as a tool to accomplish self-directed learning n actively explore learning content instead of passively receiving from the teacher n students given a high degree of self-autonomy n Students’ interest and thinking were both actively involved in the observed
lesson, in particular the photo-shooting activity n By allowing free decision-making and self-exploration in the learning process, it
was believed that students’ motivation and interest were stimulated
Case Study C31 – Belief n The collaborative writing task to associate places and living things with
human behavior through careful observations outside classroom n class was divided in groups of four and the seating plan was designed
based on learners’ ability in a combination of “strong-medium-medium-weak”, in order that group discussion, collaborative tasks, problem-solving and presentation were facilitated
Case Study C31 – Pedagogical Design & Practices
Case Study C31 – Pre-Lesson Exercise
n Lesson Flow: n 1) A pre-lesson exercise of personification introduced, students needed to identify
the sentences with personification and rewrite the sample sentences with such skill in pairs.
Case Study C31 – Assigning the Writing Task
n 2) Then, students read the texts “The Journey of the Rain” and thought about how to continue to write the ending of the story using personification.
Case Study C31 – Learning Activities
n 3) Students discussed the ending in groups of three to four n 4) Went on a campus adventure, where they took photographs with individual
tablets and put together the plots of the story ending
Case Study C31 – Tasks inside Classroom
n 5) Each student uploaded a photo and wrote a paragraph on the iPad, before the entire writing piece was combined
Case Study C31 – Review and Evaluate
n 6) Students were given time to review their group works n 7) Each student was free to evaluate each group’s composition by
reading, scoring and writing feedbacks on the platform
Case Study C31 – Summarize
n 8) Teacher highlighted the keys of personification again to summarize the class
Case Study C31 – Technology Use
n Technology role: n Student-centered n Exploration and knowledge construction: n tablet cameras in the photo-taking task as a mediator for content development for
compositions n in an outside-classroom learning environment which enhanced active thinking
and stimulation
Case Study C31 – Writing App n The writing app (隨步寫作) was a suitable technology for teaching personification, degree of self-
autonomy and active learning were allowed as students could upload the best photos and organize the sequence of paragraphs
n communication for collaboration, information access and expression was also reinforced by the writing app
n students were facilitated to discuss, negotiate and refine the organization of paragraphs n they communicated the prioritization of tasks and assignments of roles; they shared and reviewed
their learning outcomes and products of collaboration as well n the app served as a tool for writing when both handwritten input and word processing were enabled
to promote language learning n and acted as a tool for data analysis when students could work on the sequencing of paragraphs
Case Study C31 –Technology Role
n Technology content: n student-centered n emphasis on thinking skills: organization skills on the sequencing of paragraphs
in the collaborative writing task. n Evaluation skills: peer comments on the feedback column of the writing app, The
peer review was well carried out but further improvements on peer comment or assessment strategies could be made.
n skills were taught and learnt in context and application using the technology: hands-on adventure around the school campus, to practically and authentically come up with ideas for the journey of the rain in their compositions
Case Study C31 (Cont’d)
Categories of classroom practice
Teacher-centered (TC) Student-centered (SC)
Teacher-directed
Primarily didactic
Student-directed
Primarily interactive Teacher role þ Present information
þ Manage classroom
o Guide discovery
þ Model active learning
o Collaborator (sometimes learner) Student role o Store, remember information
þ Complete tasks individually
þ Create knowledge
þ Collaborator (sometimes expert) Curricular characteristics þ Breadth – focused on externally mandated
curriculum
o Focus on standards
o Fact retention
o Fragmented knowledge and disciplinary separation
o Depth – focused on student interests
þ Focus on understanding of complex ideas
þ Application of knowledge to authentic problems
o Integrated multidisciplinary themes
Classroom social organization o Independent learning
o Individual responsibility for entire task
þ Collaborative learning
þ Social distribution of thinking
Assessment practices o Fact retention
o Product oriented
o Traditional tests
o Norm referenced
o Teacher-led assessment
þ Applied knowledge
þ Process oriented
þ Alternative measures
þ Criterion referenced
o Self-assessment and reflection
Technology role o Drill and practice
o Direct instruction
o Programming
þ Exploration and knowledge construction
þ Communication (collaboration, information access, expression) þ Tool for writing, data analysis, problem-solving
Technology content o Basic computer literacy
o Skills taught in isolation
þ Emphasis on thinking skills
þ Skills taught and learned in context and application
Case Study C31 – E-Learning Pattern
n teacher beliefs in e-Learning consistent with pedagogical design
n self-directed learning: writing content self-determined, from the authentic context (playground), technology facilitated exploration, explored the environment and took photos according to personal interests; creative thinking: selection of appropriate theme, i.e. personification, associated non-living things with human behavior; apply acquired knowledge, rhetoric skills and narrative skills to composition, a student-centered approach
Case Study C31 – E-Learning Pattern
n Collaboration & High-order and analytical thinking: platform on the iPad organized paragraph sequences and integrated individual work to form a completed group work, iPad writing platform, emphasize on thinking skills & assisted intra-group communication
n Gap: quality of peer assessment, a lack of a clear assessment rubric, platform on iPad, students able to review and comment on each other
Case Study C31 – Writing App n The writing app (隨步寫作) was a suitable technology for teaching personification, degree of self-
autonomy and active learning were allowed as students could upload the best photos and organize the sequence of paragraphs
n communication for collaboration, information access and expression was also reinforced by the writing app
n students were facilitated to discuss, negotiate and refine the organization of paragraphs n they communicated the prioritization of tasks and assignments of roles; they shared and reviewed
their learning outcomes and products of collaboration as well n the app served as a tool for writing when both handwritten input and word processing were enabled
to promote language learning n and acted as a tool for data analysis when students could work on the sequencing of paragraphs
n An average of 38.21% of lesson time was dedicated for student activities
→ around 31.83% of total lesson duration was spent on student individual and group activities with use of technology
n 53.74% of time was allocated to teaching activities on average → teacher-guided and instructional activities
n Around 10% of time for classroom logistics management on average
n Teachers valued constructivist teaching as much as traditional management when e-Learning was carried out in actual classroom practices
Lesson Time Analysis: Overall results in 11 Case Studies
Results of Teacher Survey (1): Dimensions 1-3
Results of Teacher Survey (3): Dimension 6
Results of Teacher Survey (4): Dimensions 7-8
Results of Student Survey (1): Students’ Perception of e-Learning Experience
Distribution of Teacher-centered and Student-centered Classroom Practices in 11 Case Studies
Categories of classroom practice Teacher-centered (TC) Student-centered (SC)
Teacher-directed Primarily didactic
Student-directed Primarily interactive
Teacher role 10 8
Present information Manage classroom
3 11 0
Guide discovery Model active learning Collaborator (sometimes learner)
Student role 3 6
Store, remember information Complete tasks individually
6 10
Create knowledge Collaborator (sometimes expert)
Curricular characteristics
8
0 3 2
Breadth – focused on externally mandated curriculum Focus on standards Fact retention Fragmented knowledge and disciplinary separation
1 10
8
1
Depth – focused on student interests Focus on understanding of complex ideas Application of knowledge to authentic problems Integrated multidisciplinary themes
Classroom social organization
1 3
Independent learning Individual responsibility for entire task
10 9
Collaborative learning Social distribution of thinking
Assessment practices 1 7 1 0 3
Fact retention Product oriented Traditional tests Norm referenced Teacher-led assessment
9 10 2 8 4
Applied knowledge Process oriented Alternative measures Criterion referenced Self-assessment and reflection
Technology role 2 3 0
Drill and practice Direct instruction Programming
8
9
5
Exploration and knowledge construction Communication (collaboration, information access, expression) Tool for writing, data analysis, problem-solving
Technology content 0 0
Basic computer literacy Skills taught in isolation
6 7
Emphasis on thinking skills Skills taught and learned in context and application
Total count 61 Teacher-centered practices 137 Student-centered practices
Technology contents deployed in the lessons and the respective affordances – 5 Singleton project cases
Project Case Technology Content in Observed Lesson Technology Affordances
S10
SharePoint (with forum, for solving algebraic problems)
� Information access, information sharing, and communication tool for referential , representing and communication purposes
Smartboard (for demonstrating and manipulating polygons)
� Representation tool for visualizing purposes � Construction tool for knowledge construction
purposes
S20
Cloud Computing Platform (for sharing lesson preparation work and classwork)
� Information access and sharing tool for referential use and learning by sharing
Tablet (app for learning formula of trapezium, calculation)
� Representation tool for visualizing purposes � Analytical tool for explorative purposes
S30 iPad (Protractor app for measuring angles) � Information collection tool for explorative
purposes
S40
iPad (search engine for information search on global warming solutions)
� Information collection tool for explorative purposes
Google Doc (with scaffold on worksheets about perspective-taking on global warming solutions)
� Construction tool for knowledge construction purposes
S50
Tablet, multi-touch screen table (for playing word-matching games)
� Resources access tool for referential purposes
Starwish Digital Language Laboratory (with digital games on word-matching)
� Resources access tool for referential purposes
● co-existing features of student-centered and teacher-
centered classroom practices
● teachers’ beliefs in both constructivist teaching and
traditional classroom management
● The pedagogical designs and practices supported by
appropriate technology are found to be consistent with
teachers’ beliefs in most cases leading to positive learning
outcomes
Summary of Key Findings on Patterns of e-Learning
● interlocking relationship between teachers’ beliefs,
pedagogical design and practices, and technology role
● a desirable pattern for effective e-Learning implementations
at micro level in classroom contexts
Summary of Key Findings on Patterns of e-Learning (Cont’d)
Part 3: What lead to practical teacher development in the project cases?
Key findings on teacher development
Key findings on teacher development – 5 major content
1. development of e-Learning resources
2. planning on e-Learning lessons
3. teacher development on technology use
4. teacher development on e-Learning pedagogy
5. teacher development using design-based approach Content
Model Scalability
Commonly practised by the schools
1. one-shot workshop model
2. case-based best practices model
3. mentoring model
4. design-based model
5. collaborative apprenticeship model
Emerging in schools
6. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) as teacher development model
Less popular practice
7. train-the-trainers model
Not identified in current study
8. principle-based understanding model
Content
Model Scalability
Key findings on teacher development – 7 model identified
● collaborative apprenticeship model is desirable for sustainable e-
Learning development as it encompasses key features of the mentoring, principle-based understanding and design-based models under the formation of Community of Practice (CoP)
● CoP was an efficient teacher network for resources sharing, information exchange and knowledge development, due to its many-to-many approach of teacher involvement
Content
Model Scalability
Key findings on teacher development – Scalability: Collaborative apprenticeship model
● The MOOC as teacher development model emerged in three of the
project cases, is a potential model to extend e-Learning teacher development across a number of CoPs to large-scale online resources sharing, refinement and application among massive groups of users in the future
Key findings on teacher development – Scalability: MOOC as teacher development model
Content
Model Scalability
Content of Teacher Development
Models of Teacher Development
● Partnership within 6 school clusters:
5 patterns of school partnership
Part 4: What important factors could be identified from the partnerships with different stakeholders?
Key findings on partnership – Pattern 1
1) a pure traditional leader-centered team leadership
structure
2) distributed-coordinated leadership structures
Key findings on partnership – Pattern 2
3) a fusion of traditional leader-centered and distributed team leadership structure
Key findings on partnership – Pattern 3
4) duplicated distributed team leadership structures, and
Key findings on partnership – Pattern 4
5) an intermediate form of distributed-fragmented and distributed-coordinated leadership structure
Key findings on partnership – Pattern 5
● team size
● structuralized work division according to area of
expertise
● work and idea exchange
Key findings on partnership – An effective school partnership
● consultancy role, critical friends in e-Learning ● give direction and inspiration ● positive impacts on e-Learning development ● supports including but not limited to 5 areas: 1) resources 2) lesson planning 3) technical 4) pedagogy 5) evaluation
Key findings on partnership – Tertiary education partners
● examples: 1) common goal/belief 2) product co-ownership 3) mutual benefit 4) division of labor 5) clear work schedule 6) simple task nature 7) extra resource investment, 8) trust 9) intensive communication
● mutual benefit is the basic of a partnership
● trust is a cornerstone of a long lasting one
Key findings on partnership – Factors in a successful partnership
Part 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion – Each of the four levels contribute to both the sustainability and scalability of e-Learning development in school education
● Micro (classroom) level: Consistency among teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical designs and practices, and the role of technology in e-Learning lesson planning, as well as positive learning outcomes achieved by students are critical
● Meso (school) level: Supportive school senior management determines the formation of subject-based CoP under collaborative apprenticeship model of teacher development, and strategic school plans to scale e-Learning patterns to two or more subjects, building up school e-Learning cultures and development cycles
● Exo (community partners) level: cross-school CoP structures are most desirable for sustaining and scaling up school partnerships, with tertiary education partners playing a catalytic role to scale up the good school practices of CoPs and business partners acting a supplementary role to support the development of resources and learning platforms
● Macro (larger society) level: compatible ITEd policy including teacher
development support from EDB and related governmental sector support the entire future e-Learning development
Recommendations on patterns of e-Learning
1. School-based goals are the main reasons for local schools to opt for an e-Learning implementation plan
2. Such goals should be aligned with the actual pedagogical design and practices in classroom contexts
3. e-Learning implementation of school-based pedagogical practices is most effective and common when the practices are started at subject-based and grade-based levels in schools
4. A hybrid of top-down and bottom-up approach of school leadership is common and can be effective because both approaches support favorable e-Learning patterns to sustain and scale up in schools
Recommendations on teacher development
7. Principle-based understanding model of teacher development will provide better guidance for schools to develop more sustainable patterns of e-Learning in the long term, especially to enrich teachers’ theoretical understanding in practicing genuine student-centered learning
8. Formation of CoP and development of MOOC as an e-Learning platform for resources and lesson planning among a number of CoPs are potential for scaling up sustainable teacher development on e-Learning, provided that there are financial and policy supports available
9. Considerable team size and maintenance of mutual benefits between school partners are most fundamental to establish successful school partnerships in e-Learning implementation
10. Consultancy role of tertiary education partners is welcomed by schools and is sustainable as long as resources and funding are available and mutual benefit exists
11. Continuous business partnership is possible when there is mutual benefit between schools and business partners, which provide supports such as IT infrastructure, technical support, and learning and teaching resources to schools, at the same time foresee profitable prospects and business opportunities
Recommendations on partnership
e-Learning in School Education in Hong Kong: An Evaluation of 11 Case Studies
Thank You!
Professor Kong Siu Cheung
Head of Department of Mathematics and Information Technology Director of Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology The Hong Kong Institute of Education Hong Kong
