Actual pedagogical use by teachers

Table 7.20: Frequency of computer use by teachers during class in past month as reported by students (Students’ Questionnaire, Q. 7)

Frequency S2

(N = 2058)

S4 (N = 2021)

S6 (N = 1833)

% Cum. % % Cum. % % Cum. %

Almost daily 13.2 13.2 18.9 18.9 27.9 27.9

2-3 times a week 34.7 47.9 33.9 52.8 25.8 53.7

About once a week 20.9 68.8 14.5 67.3 13.9 67.6

2-3 times per month 24.1 92.9 20.4 87.7 23.1 90.7

Not at all 7.1 100 12.3 100 9.3 100

Total 100 - 100 - 100 -

The data shown in Table 7.20 (Students’ Questionnaire item 7) add further strength to the observation that more is being said than actually done. Whereas very high percentages of school heads reported at least occasional use, only around half of the students reported their teachers having used IT in class for two to three lessons per week or more. This is, however, higher than the corresponding figures reported in the Preliminary Study, where only around 25% of S2 and S4 students and 35% of S6 students reported their teachers using computers in class at least two or three times a week or more.

Chapter 7: General Findings from Secondary School Sector

When comparing the figures of “almost daily” use we can also see an increase since the Preliminary Study, from 4.3% to 13.2% for S2, from 7.2% to 18.9% for S4 and from 16.1% to 27.9% for S6 students. Similarly the proportions reporting “no use at all” have dropped from around 17% to 24% for all grade levels in the Preliminary Study to 12.3% and less in this Study. In the teacher focus-group interviews most of the teachers claimed that they had reached the target set by the Government of using IT for 25% of their curriculum. However, during the School Tours widespread computer use was not obvious. Some teachers using IT in classes visited by the Project Team admitted that they would not have used it if their classes were not being observed.

Teachers’ self-reports of the software they are using (Table 7.21, Teachers’ Questionnaire item 12) are consistent with other data suggesting that word processing software is being used a lot in teaching (96.4% saying they use it occasionally or always), followed by spreadsheet software (79.3%), presentation software (77.8%), communication software (73%) and software developed by textbook publishers (72.6%). Relatively little use is made of simulation software (30.2%) or of educational software developed by the school or by EMB (former ED), both being around 24%.

Table 7.21: Frequency of software used in teaching reported by teachers (Teachers’ Questionnaire, Q. 12)

Software % of teachers choosing the option N

Always Occasionally Rarely Never

Word processing software 80.4 16.0 2.8 0.8 6298

Spreadsheet software 39.3 40.0 15.4 5.4 6276

Database software 22.9 37.8 27.5 11.9 6217

Presentation software 42.0 35.8 16.2 6.0 6230

Communication software 39.7 33.3 19.7 7.3 6237

Web design software 12.2 31.4 39.9 16.6 6232

Audio/video editing software 10.2 31.7 39.3 18.8 6234

Graphics editing/drawing software 18.9 37.7 30.4 13.0 6232

Multi-media software 19.4 41.4 29.0 10.2 6233

Simulation software 5.4 24.8 42.2 27.7 6198

Practice and drill software 6.8 32.0 40.1 21.1 6216

Educational software developed by yourself 11.0 26.8 30.9 31.2 6232

Educational software developed by your school 3.6 20.7 35.3 40.4 6199

Educational software developed by EMB (Formerly ED) 2.6 21.1 39.4 36.9 6211 Educational software or teaching materials obtained from

HKedCity (HKedCity.net)

5.1 28.9 35.4 30.7 6213

Educational software developed by other government departments/voluntary organizations/tertiary institutions

3.7 27.0 38.6 30.7 6201

Educational software provided by textbook publishers 25.2 47.4 20.6 6.8 6258 Educational software developed by other software vendors 7.6 38.1 35.5 18.9 6195

Table 7.22: Nature of use by teachers of IT in teaching-related activities (Teachers’ Questionnaire, Q. 8)

Nature of use % of teachers choosing the option N

Always Occasionally Rarely Never

Preparing teaching notes/course materials 59.7 34.5 5.1 0.7 6339

Searching for information, new pedagogy, teaching materials, etc. 46.8 44.3 8.1 0.8 6316

Designing inter-class activities and assignments 21.9 47.1 25.6 5.5 6303

Managing, administering and collecting student tests 20.3 30.1 31.9 17.8 6287

Discussing and communicating with students 8.6 35.1 39.5 16.9 6280

Discussing teaching-related matters with other teachers 5.9 26.1 43.1 25.0 6276 Carrying out collaborative projects with other schools 4.9 19.5 30.9 44.8 6246

From Table 7.22 (Teachers’ Questionnaire item 8) it can be seen quite clearly that teachers are using computers in secondary schools especially for searching for information and preparing teaching materials, with more than 91% compared to 76.6% reported in the Preliminary Study, using it occasionally or always for these purposes. IT definitely has become a more regular part of their culture and their daily routine. However, there are still 56.4% of respondents who have never or only rarely used it to communicate with students and 68.1% who have never or only rarely used it to communicate with colleagues in ways that could enhance effective collaboration. Also, from the teacher focus group

interviews it was evident that most of the teachers’ use is still limited to the use of presentation software although a small percentage said they give project-based homework to their students.

However, most of the projects are in the form of take-home assignments rather than being completed in class. In relation to project-based work, students mostly use IT in the form of searching the Internet for information. It must also be noted, however, that this kind of individual or group work is not very feasible in the current setup in most schools, as most computers are located in special rooms (such as MMLC, computer room) whereas students spent most of their time in regular classrooms.

Table 7.23: Teachers’ allocation of time for different purposes in their most satisfying lessons with IT application (Teachers’ Questionnaire, Q. 14b)

Purposes % of teachers choosing the option N

All of the time

Most of the time

Half of the time

A small of proportio

n of time

None of the time

Teacher explaining and demonstrating to whole class 4.8 29.9 36.3 27.4 1.6 6063 Students working individually with the computers 0.6 10.9 22.9 37.9 27.6 5678

Students working in group with the computers 0.5 5.9 13.6 38.9 41.1 5581

When students were asked to report their perceptions of the lesson using computers that they like the most (Students’ Questionnaire item 13c), 73.1% of S2, 78.3% of S4 and 75.1% of S6 students reported that their teachers had been explaining and demonstrating to the whole class for at least half of the time. On the other hand, 65.6% of S2, 80.4% of S4 and 80.4% of S6 students said students had worked individually with the computers a small proportion or none of the time and 78.9% of S2, 86.7% of S4 and 86.8% of S6 students said students had worked in small groups with the computers a small proportion or none of the time.

From Table 7.23 (Teachers’ Questionnaire item 14b) we can see that, in the lessons with IT application with which the teachers were the most satisfied 71% of them said their role had been explaining and demonstrating to the whole class for half, most or all of the time. On the other hand, there were relatively few instances of students working individually with the computers (27.6% of teachers saying this did not happen at all and 37.9% only a small proportion of the time) and even fewer of students working in groups with the computers (41.1% of teachers saying this did not happen at all and 38.9%

only a small proportion of the time). This supports the evidence reported in the Preliminary Study that the most common practices are teacher centred, and the qualitative data corroborate these findings further.

As far as teachers’ reporting of use of IT in student evaluation (Teachers’ Questionnaire item 9a) is concerned, there is evidence of a growing interest in use of IT for this purpose. 49.6% of teachers reported that they occasionally or always use IT for evaluation and 61.7% for processing student evaluation data. Only around half or less of the teachers reported that saw benefits in using IT for evaluating students (Teachers’ Questionnaire item 9b). 51.5% said it allows greater flexibility in both time and place for evaluating students, 43.9% that it is easier to follow up on student evaluation, 37.1% that it is easier to relate evaluation results to students’ weaknesses, 35.8% that in enables students to conduct self-review and self-evaluation on their own initiative, and 36.7% that it supplements existing evaluation tools. More teachers seemed to be aware of the benefits of using IT for processing student evaluation data (Teachers’ Questionnaire item 9c), 67.9% saying that it is faster to obtain the evaluation results and 55.4% that it allows for more accuracy in evaluation results.

However, only 44.9% agreed that student performance can be evaluated in greater detail, 35.2% that it is easier to follow up on student evaluations and 34.7% that it is easier to relate evaluation results and students’ weaknesses.

When asked to comment on the use of IT to cater for individual students’ needs (School Heads’

Questionnaire item 7), 98.4% of the secondary school heads indicated that it had been used in certain subjects for practice or individual counseling to strengthen learning outcomes, but less reported any cases of tailoring for various kinds of individual differences in the classroom: students with special

Chapter 7: General Findings from Secondary School Sector

learning needs (28.4%), remedial programmes (55.8%) and gifted students (38.6%). Nevertheless, there is a marked increase from 20%-30% reporting this kind of use in the Preliminary Study to 28.4%-55.8% in this Study.

The patterns described above are reflected further in the qualitative data. While teachers said in the focus group interviews that one of the main reasons for using IT was to invoke student interest and make learning more exciting, interesting and motivational – which is not necessarily a good way of conceptualising the role of IT – it was noted during classroom observations that some students were losing interest over a period of time and in some cases were quite obviously bored during lessons where the teacher was using IT. This was particularly in cases where the teacher simply showed some kind of animation, without any interaction or explanation, then gave the students follow-up exercises to complete on paper at the end of the presentation. In fact, in the student interviews it was expressed by some, particularly S6, students that they would prefer their teachers to use IT less because of the time wasted by the teacher setting up and operating the technology. They made it clear that it is the teacher’s ability to interact effectively with the class that creates effective learning, not necessarily the technology and certainly not the technology alone. They also mentioned that if the teacher uses PowerPoint to present notes, it requires them to have to copy these notes more quickly, whereas if the teacher is writing the notes on the board the pace is slower. On the other hand, the students did mention that it is sometimes easier to follow the teacher’s PowerPoint notes because the writing is more legible and the main points are highlighted, thus making it easier to remember. Clearly, both of these perceptions suggest the idea of teaching that is very much teacher dominated, with students in the passive role of listening and copying the teacher’s notes verbatim, and that the use of IT has not changed this approach at all, with the teachers not even making the notes on the PowerPoint slides available to free the students’ time for more higher-order tasks. The students even went as far as to say that using IT in class sometimes slows down the pace of covering the curriculum and creates a need for some supplementary classes. A further obstacle expressed by students was that there is often a storage problem if their project files are too big, and that this creates difficulties in submitting assignments either on floppy disk or by email.

From the qualitative data there is evidence to suggest that teachers’ integration of IT into the curriculum seems to be a slow process and often occurs as a consequence of trying and having success with some small, sometimes lower level, tasks and progressively becoming more adventurous. This process is illustrated by the following comment from one of the school heads interviewed:

At the very beginning, teachers were worried about using IT in Education. Some of them even resisted the change. Encouraged by [the principal], teachers started using IT for word processing, which was mainly for making notes and test papers. Then, they learnt checking and sending emails via the Internet. And then they employed PowerPoint to assist the presentation of teaching materials. I have used a progressive approach to encourage teachers to meet the target of 25% IT in Teaching.