Community Resources

School heads were quite satisfied (一般) that their schools made use of community resources and took part in community activities on the promotion of ITEd — a statistically significant increase was found in school heads’ satisfaction level in this aspect in MS2

For the use of community resources, 28% of school heads were satisfied or very satisfied that students and parents made appropriate use of community resources such as computer facilities in community centres and digital resources in libraries in MS1. The percentage significantly increased statistically to 40% in MS2 (Table 6.118, [P1]HSQ7d). In MS1, 26% of school heads were satisfied or very satisfied with the expected outcomes that their schools made use of community resources such as Partners in Learning (PiL) and took part in community activities on the promotion of ITEd while the percentage increased to 32% in MS2 (Table 6.118, [P1]HSQ7c).

Table 6.118 School heads’ levels of satisfaction with making use of community resources and taking part in community activities on the promotion of ITEd ([P1]HSQ7c,d)

Mean SD N Count (%) of School Heads choosing the option Quite satisfied

(1-5) Very

satisfied Satisfied

(一般) Not satisfied Totally not satisfied

P-value

“The school always makes use of community resources [e.g. Partners in Learning (PiL) 育才計劃] and takes part in community activities on the promotion of ITEd.”

MS1 3.14 0.70 551 20 ( 4 ) 120 ( 22 ) 331 ( 60 ) 79 ( 14 ) 1 ( 0 )

MS2 3.24 0.68 445 14 ( 3 ) 129 ( 29 ) 253 ( 57 ) 49 ( 11 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.014*

“Students and parents make appropriate use of the community IT facilities and digital resources (e.g. computer facilities in the community centres and digital resources in the libraries).”

MS1 3.19 0.64 551 8 ( 1 ) 150 ( 27 ) 335 ( 61 ) 56 ( 10 ) 2 ( 0 )

MS2 3.36 0.62 445 9 ( 2 ) 167 ( 38 ) 244 ( 55 ) 25 ( 6 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.000***

Mean: 1=“Totally not satisfied” and 5=“Very satisfied”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

ITEd Team teachers perceived the support from the community as beneficial and they perceived a higher level of agreement to the benefit of using the community IT facilities or digital resources to help needy students to lessen the digital divide

ITEd Team teachers perceived the support from the community as significant (Table 6.119, [P4]ITQ7d.i-v). In MS1, 78% of the ITEd Team teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the community IT facilities or digital resources could effectively help needy students to lessen the digital divide. Around 70% of them agreed or strongly agreed that the use of community IT facilities or digital resources as beneficial to the following: to enhance sharing and collaboration

on the use of IT for teaching between schools and the community (73%), to provide requisite technical support for the development of ITEd in schools (72%) and to reduce schools’ burden in developing IT facilities and digital resources (70%) as well as to provide opportunities for schools to upkeep the latest ITEd development trend in the education sector (66%). The level of agreement on the aforementioned items regarding the benefits of community IT facilities or digital resources significantly dropped statistically (MS1: 70%-78%; MS2: 62%-69%) in MS2 except for the benefit of providing “opportunities for school to upkeep with the latest ITEd development and trend in the education sector”.

School heads perceived that the EMB made significant contributions to school development in ITEd

With regard to the extent of the contribution level of the provision of IT facilities and digital resources from the different organisations to ITEd in schools, as reported in MS1, most of school heads (85%) perceived that the EMB made considerable or significant contributions to school development in ITEd. Around 50% thought that the “internet service providers” (54%), “software and hardware service providers” (52%) and “IT application system developers” (46%) made considerable or significant contributions. Lower percentages of school heads considered that

“tertiary institutions” (31%), “professional education organisations” (23%), “local primary, secondary and special schools” (22%), “other government policy departments or bureau” (9%) and

“community organisations or centres” (7%) made considerable or significant contributions, with mean ratings below 3.00 on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘none’ and 5 was ‘significant contribution’. No statistically significant difference was found in MS2 (Table 6.120, [P2]HQ14a.i-xi).

ITEd team teachers perceived that IT facilities or resources provided by the HKEdCity were quite sufficient (一般)

When asked about the sufficiency of community IT facilities or resources as listed in Table 6.121 ([P4]ITQ7b.i-x), 25% or less of the ITEd Team teachers in MS1 found the support provided by the organisations or institutions to be sufficient or very sufficient: the EMB (25%), tertiary institutions (18%), IT-related professional organisations such as Hong Kong Computer Society and Hong Kong Association for Computer Education (14%-15%), non-governmental organisations such as Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union and Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (9%-12%) and IT industry (e.g. Partners in Learning) (12%). The mean ratings fell in the range of 2.58 to 2.92 (SD:0.72-0.86) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally insufficient’ and 5 was ‘very sufficient’. The only exception was the HKEdCity. 61% of the ITEd team teachers found the support to be sufficient or very sufficient with a mean rating of 3.62 (SD:0.72) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally insufficient’ and 5 was ‘very sufficient’. A statistically significant decrease (from 61% to 49%) in ITEd Team teachers’ perceived level of sufficiency of the IT facilities/resources provided by the HKEdCity to schools was found in MS2.

In general, 21% of the ITEd Team teachers in MS1 perceived the provision of community IT facilities or digital resources to be sufficient or very sufficient, with a mean rating of 2.90 (SD:0.59) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally insufficient’ and 5 was ‘very sufficient’. No statistically significant difference was noted in MS2 (Table 6.122, [P4]ITQ7c). Similarly, around one-fourth of school heads (26%) considered such resources as sufficient or very sufficient in MS1, with a mean rating of 3.02 (SD:0.75) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally insufficient’

and 5 was ‘very sufficient’. There was a statistically significant increase (from 26% to 31%) in MS2 (Table 6.122, [P2]HQ14b).

Table 6.119 ITEd Team teachers’ levels of agreement on the benefits of community IT facilities/digital resources ([P4]ITQ7d.i-v)

MS1 MS2

Mean SD N Count (%) of ITEd Team teachers choosing the option Mean SD N Count (%) of ITEd Team teachers choosing the option

(1-5) Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

(1-5) Strongly

agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

P-value

i. 3.75 0.66 334 26 ( 8 ) 213 ( 64 ) 84 ( 25 ) 9 ( 3 ) 2 ( 1 ) 3.66 0.68 332 22 ( 7 ) 192 ( 58 ) 101 ( 30 ) 17 ( 5 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.050*

ii. 3.75 0.78 334 42 ( 13 ) 192 ( 57 ) 76 ( 23 ) 22 ( 7 ) 2 ( 1 ) 3.61 0.80 332 33 ( 10 ) 171 ( 52 ) 94 ( 28 ) 34 ( 10 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.018*

iii 3.90 0.66 334 50 ( 15 ) 209 ( 63 ) 67 ( 20 ) 8 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.77 0.71 332 42 ( 13 ) 185 ( 56 ) 92 ( 28 ) 13 ( 4 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.014*

iv. 3.80 0.65 334 33 ( 10 ) 210 ( 63 ) 82 ( 25 ) 8 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 3.67 0.72 332 29 ( 9 ) 182 ( 55 ) 103 ( 31 ) 17 ( 5 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0.015*

v. 3.74 0.69 334 35 ( 10 ) 188 ( 56 ) 100 ( 30 ) 10 ( 3 ) 1 ( 0 ) 3.65 0.71 332 26 ( 8 ) 184 ( 55 ) 104 ( 31 ) 17 ( 5 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0.169 Benefits of community IT facilities/digital resources

i. To provide requisite technical support for the development of ITEd in school ii. To reduce school’s burden in developing IT facilities and digital resources iii. To help needy students to lessen the digital divide

iv. To enhance sharing and collaboration on the use of IT for teaching between school and the community v. To provide opportunities for school to upkeep with the latest ITEd development and trend in the education sector Mean: 1=“Strongly disagree” and 5=“Strongly agree”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Table 6.120 School heads’ perception of contribution from community organisations to ITEd in schools ([P2]HQ14a.i-xi)

MS1 MS2

Mean SD N Count (%) of ITEd Team teachers choosing the option Mean SD N Count (%) of ITEd Team teachers choosing the option (1-5)

Significant contribution

Considerable contribution

Some contribution

(一般)

Little

contribution None

(1-5)

Significant contribution

Considerable contribution

Some contribution

(一般)

Little

contribution None

P-value

i. 4.20 0.74 539 203 ( 38 ) 252 ( 47 ) 75 ( 14 ) 9 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.22 0.74 439 167 ( 38 ) 212 ( 48 ) 51 ( 12 ) 8 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0.676 ii. 2.71 0.93 539 6 ( 1 ) 87 ( 16 ) 259 ( 48 ) 116 ( 22 ) 71 ( 13 ) 2.80 0.93 439 16 ( 4 ) 63 ( 14 ) 219 ( 50 ) 99 ( 23 ) 42 ( 10 ) 0.253 iii 2.54 0.90 539 8 ( 1 ) 43 ( 8 ) 265 ( 49 ) 141 ( 26 ) 82 ( 15 ) 2.61 0.88 439 8 ( 2 ) 43 ( 10 ) 206 ( 47 ) 132 ( 30 ) 50 ( 11 ) 0.420 iv. 2.96 1.00 539 17 ( 3 ) 153 ( 28 ) 211 ( 39 ) 106 ( 20 ) 52 ( 10 ) 2.94 0.91 439 14 ( 3 ) 97 ( 22 ) 209 ( 48 ) 87 ( 20 ) 32 ( 7 ) 0.527 v. 2.81 0.97 539 16 ( 3 ) 105 ( 19 ) 236 ( 44 ) 122 ( 23 ) 60 ( 11 ) 2.88 0.96 439 17 ( 4 ) 88 ( 20 ) 202 ( 46 ) 90 ( 21 ) 42 ( 10 ) 0.240 vi. 2.87 0.93 539 12 ( 2 ) 113 ( 21 ) 255 ( 47 ) 109 ( 20 ) 50 ( 9 ) 2.89 0.91 439 8 ( 2 ) 97 ( 22 ) 214 ( 49 ) 80 ( 18 ) 40 ( 9 ) 0.581 vii. 2.46 0.86 539 2 ( 0 ) 36 ( 7 ) 259 ( 48 ) 152 ( 28 ) 90 ( 17 ) 2.53 0.89 439 5 ( 1 ) 39 ( 9 ) 201 ( 46 ) 131 ( 30 ) 63 ( 14 ) 0.344 viii. 2.62 0.95 539 6 ( 1 ) 76 ( 14 ) 251 ( 47 ) 121 ( 22 ) 85 ( 16 ) 2.65 0.93 439 7 ( 2 ) 62 ( 14 ) 197 ( 45 ) 117 ( 27 ) 56 ( 13 ) 0.839

ix. 3.46 0.84 539 35 ( 6 ) 249 ( 46 ) 201 ( 37 ) 38 ( 7 ) 16 ( 3 ) 3.49 0.82 439 35 ( 8 ) 196 ( 45 ) 165 ( 38 ) 36 ( 8 ) 7 ( 2 ) 0.780 x. 3.49 0.87 539 44 ( 8 ) 248 ( 46 ) 191 ( 35 ) 38 ( 7 ) 18 ( 3 ) 3.50 0.90 439 46 ( 10 ) 193 ( 44 ) 146 ( 33 ) 42 ( 10 ) 12 ( 3 ) 0.834 xi. 3.32 0.93 539 34 ( 6 ) 216 ( 40 ) 212 ( 39 ) 45 ( 8 ) 32 ( 6 ) 3.34 0.93 439 35 ( 8 ) 161 ( 37 ) 181 ( 41 ) 41 ( 9 ) 21 ( 5 ) 0.917 Organisations

i. Education and Manpower Bureau

ii. Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau/Innovation and Technology Commission iii. Other government policy departments/bureau

iv. Tertiary institutions

v. Local primary, secondary and special schools vi. Professional education organisations vii. Community organisations/centres viii. Mass media (e.g. TV and radio) ix. Software/hardware service providers x. Internet service providers

xi. IT application system developers

Mean: 1=“None” and 5=“Significant contribution”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Table 6.121 ITEd Team teachers’ perception of the sufficiency of IT facilities/resources provided by the community to schools ([P4]ITQ7b.i-x)

MS1 MS2

Mean SD N Count (%) of ITEd Team teachers choosing the option Mean SD N Count (%) of ITEd Team teachers choosing the option (1-5)

Very

sufficient Sufficient

Quite sufficient

(一般)

Insufficient Totally insufficient

(1-5)

Very

sufficient Sufficient

Quite sufficient

(一般)

Insufficient Totally insufficient

P-value

i. 2.92 0.83 334 3 ( 1 ) 80 ( 24 ) 154 ( 46 ) 82 ( 25 ) 15 ( 4 ) 2.92 0.85 332 9 ( 3 ) 63 ( 19 ) 167 ( 50 ) 77 ( 23 ) 16 ( 5 ) 0.785 ii. 3.62 0.72 334 24 ( 7 ) 180 ( 54 ) 110 ( 33 ) 18 ( 5 ) 2 ( 1 ) 3.41 0.75 332 11 ( 3 ) 153 ( 46 ) 134 ( 40 ) 30 ( 9 ) 4 ( 1 ) 0.000***

iii 2.78 0.86 334 6 ( 2 ) 53 ( 16 ) 162 ( 49 ) 88 ( 26 ) 25 ( 7 ) 2.72 0.80 332 4 ( 1 ) 39 ( 12 ) 171 ( 52 ) 97 ( 29 ) 21 ( 6 ) 0.330 iv. 2.76 0.81 334 5 ( 1 ) 42 ( 13 ) 177 ( 53 ) 89 ( 27 ) 21 ( 6 ) 2.67 0.76 332 3 ( 1 ) 27 ( 8 ) 183 ( 55 ) 97 ( 29 ) 22 ( 7 ) 0.151 v. 2.78 0.79 334 3 ( 1 ) 47 ( 14 ) 177 ( 53 ) 87 ( 26 ) 20 ( 6 ) 2.70 0.77 332 3 ( 1 ) 31 ( 9 ) 184 ( 55 ) 91 ( 27 ) 23 ( 7 ) 0.192 vi. 2.66 0.80 334 3 ( 1 ) 36 ( 11 ) 165 ( 49 ) 105 ( 31 ) 25 ( 7 ) 2.57 0.79 332 4 ( 1 ) 20 ( 6 ) 168 ( 51 ) 110 ( 33 ) 30 ( 9 ) 0.153 vii. 2.58 0.80 334 3 ( 1 ) 28 ( 8 ) 158 ( 47 ) 117 ( 35 ) 28 ( 8 ) 2.52 0.75 332 2 ( 1 ) 17 ( 5 ) 163 ( 49 ) 121 ( 36 ) 29 ( 9 ) 0.379 viii. 2.75 0.77 334 3 ( 1 ) 38 ( 11 ) 185 ( 55 ) 87 ( 26 ) 21 ( 6 ) 2.70 0.77 332 3 ( 1 ) 35 ( 11 ) 175 ( 53 ) 99 ( 30 ) 20 ( 6 ) 0.412

ix. 2.63 0.77 334 2 ( 1 ) 28 ( 8 ) 176 ( 53 ) 101 ( 30 ) 27 ( 8 ) 2.58 0.75 332 4 ( 1 ) 16 ( 5 ) 174 ( 52 ) 113 ( 34 ) 25 ( 8 ) 0.297 x. 3.00 1.16 10 1 ( 10 ) 2 ( 20 ) 4 ( 40 ) 2 ( 20 ) 1 ( 10 ) 2.61 0.85 18 0 ( 0 ) 2 ( 11 ) 9 ( 50 ) 5 ( 28 ) 2 ( 11 ) 0.358 Organisations

i. Education and Manpower Bureau ii. HKEdCity

iii. Tertiary institutions

iv. The Hong Kong Computer Society

v. The Hong Kong Association for Computer Education vi. Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union vii. Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers

viii. IT Industries [e.g. Partners in Learning (PiL) 育才計劃]

ix. Voluntary organisations x. Others

Mean: 1=“Totally insufficient” and 5=“Very sufficient”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Table 6.122 School heads’ and ITEd Team teachers’ perception of the sufficiency of IT facilities/resources provided by the community to schools ([P2]HQ14b, [P4]ITQ7c)

MS1 MS2

Mean SD N Count (%) of Students choosing the option Mean SD N Count (%) of Students choosing the option Stakeholder

(1-5)

Very

sufficient Sufficient

Quite sufficient

(一般)

Insufficient Totally insufficient

(1-5)

Very

sufficient Sufficient

Quite sufficient

(一般)

Insufficient Totally insufficient

P-value

ITEd Team teachers

2.90 0.59 334 2 ( 1 ) 68 ( 20 ) 169 ( 51 ) 86 ( 26 ) 9 ( 3 ) 2.88 0.72 332 2 ( 1 ) 53 ( 16 ) 190 ( 57 ) 78 ( 23 ) 9 ( 3 ) 0.728 School heads 3.02 0.75 539 3 ( 1 ) 136 ( 25 ) 281 ( 52 ) 107 ( 20 ) 12 ( 2 ) 3.13 0.72 439 2 ( 0 ) 135 ( 31 ) 229 ( 52 ) 66 ( 15 ) 7 ( 2 ) 0.015*

Mean: 1=“Totally insufficient” and 5=“Very sufficient”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

在文檔中 Final Report (Version: 3.0) (頁 163-167)