**Chapter 6 Major Findings and Discussion for Primary School Sector Sector**

**6.4 Enriching Digital Resources for Learning**

**6.4.2 Digital Resources Repository**

Table 6.71 ITEd Team teachers’ perception of the needs of different types of support for teachers and students in school ([P4]ITQ5d)

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

**(1-5) ** **Much in **

**need ** **Quite in need** **Average ** **Not much **
**in need **

**No need at **
**all **

**P-value**

“To increase/upgrade digital resources”

MS1 3.92 0.78 334 82 ( 25 ) 151 ( 45 ) 93 ( 28 ) 8 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 )

MS2 3.83 0.80 332 72 ( 22 ) 142 ( 43 ) 107 ( 32 ) 11 ( 3 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.142 Mean: 1= “No need at all” and 5=“Much in need”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Lack of suitable digital resources was one of the major problems that schools encountered when ****implementing school ITEd plans as perceived by school heads **

In MS1, school heads indicated that the lack of suitable educational software or digital resources (32%) was the second major problem that schools often or most often encountered when implementing school ITEd plans (Table 6.72, [P2]HQ3l). A statistically significant decrease was noted in school heads’ perceived frequency of the difficulties encountered in implementing the ITEd plans in MS2 (from 32% to 26%). The major difficulty that ITEd Team teachers frequently or very frequently encountered in MS1 were insufficient IT facilities and digital resources from the EMB (34%). There was no statistically significant difference in this area for ITEd Team teachers in MS2 (Table 6.72, [P4]ITQ4k).

Table 6.72 School heads’ and ITEd Team teachers’ perceived frequency of difficulties encountered in implementing of ITEd plan ([P2]HQ3l, [P4]ITQ4k)

**Stakeholders ** **Mean** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **

**(1-5)** **Most **

**often ** **Often ** **Occasionally **

**(間中) ** **Rarely Never **

**P-value**

“Lacking in suitable educational software/digital resources”

(Mean: 1=“Never” and 5=“Most often”)

MS1 3.10 0.95 539 42 ( 8 ) 127 ( 24 ) 229 ( 42 ) 123 ( 23 ) 18 ( 3 ) School heads

MS2 2.93 0.93 440 21 ( 5 ) 93 ( 21 ) 179 ( 41 ) 128 ( 29 ) 19 ( 4 ) 0.007**

**Mean** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **

**(1-5)** **Very **

**Frequently ** **Frequently ** **Occasionally **

**(間中) ** **Rarely Never **

**P-value**

“There are insufficient IT facilities and digital resources from Education and Manpower Bureau”

(Mean: 1=“Never” and 5=“Very frequently”)

MS1 3.22 0.94 334 35 ( 10 ) 81 ( 24 ) 147 ( 44 ) 65 ( 19 ) 6 ( 2 ) ITEd team teachers

MS2 3.19 1.01 332 40 ( 12 ) 79 ( 24 ) 127 ( 38 ) 77 ( 23 ) 9 ( 3 ) 0.666 Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

platforms for learning and teaching in MS1 (Table 6.73, [P5]TQ11a, [P6]SQ12a). A statistically significant decrease was noted in the percentage of P6 students using the platforms for learning (from 55% to 49%) in MS2 and there was no statistically significant difference in those for P4 students and teachers in MS2. Of these, 73% of P4 and 80% of P6 respondents visited school e-learning platforms 1 to 10 times while 21% of P4 and 15% of P6 students respectively reported using the platforms 11 times or more during the week prior to the conduct of the questionnaire survey in MS1 (Table 6.75, [P6]SQ12b). 73% and 10% of the teachers used e-learning platforms to conduct teaching 1 to 10 times and 11 times or more respectively during the week prior to the conduct of the questionnaire survey in MS1 (Table 6.73, [P5]TQ11b). A statistically significant difference in the distribution of the frequency in using e-learning platforms for students and teachers was noted in MS2. A statistically significant decrease was noted in the frequency of P4 and P6 students using e-learning platforms (MS1: P4=9%-27% and P6=7%-32%; MS2:

P4=8%-23% and P6=5%-22% used the platforms for 5 times or more) while an increase was observed in the frequency of teachers using e-learning platforms (from 17% to 24% used the platforms for 5 to 10 times) in MS2.

Table 6.73 The usage of e-learning platforms to conduct teaching / learning by teachers and students during the week prior to the conduct of the questionnaire survey ([P6]SQ12a,b [P5]TQ11a,b)

**Percentage (%) choosing the option **

**P4 P6 Teachers **
**MS1 MS2 **

**P-value **

**MS1 MS2 **

**P-value **

**MS1 MS2 **

**P-value **

**(N=1782) (N=1934) ** ** (N=1939) (N=2030) (N=1777) ****(N=1743) **

Yes 54 51 55 49 31 34

No 46 49 0.103^{ a}

45 51 0.000***^{ a}

69 66 0.061^{ a}

**Frequency (N=971) ****(N=992) ****χ**^{2 }_{(df=4)} **P-value ****(N=1071) (N=1004) χ**** ^{2 }**(df=4)

**P-value****(N=556) (N=597) χ**

**(df=4)**

^{2 }

**P-value**16 times or above 12 8 8 5 4 3

11 to 15 times 9 8 7 6 6 6

5 to 10 times 27 23 32 22 17 24

1 to 4 times 46 49 48 54 56 51

Nil 7 12

20.27 0.001**^{ b}

6 13

61.03 0.000***^{ b}

17 17

10.99 0.027*^{ b}

a. Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ^{b.}Chi-Square Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Students perceived a higher level of agreement on the helpfulness of e-learning platforms to ****their learning than that of teachers **

Regarding the learning effectiveness of e-learning platforms, as reported in MS1, around 60% of the students (66% of P4 and 58% of P6) agreed or strongly agreed that e-learning platforms could help their learning, with mean ratings of 3.86 (SD:0.86) and 3.65 (SD:0.84) respectively on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 was ‘strongly agree’ (Table 6.74, [P6]SQ12d).

Teachers perceived slightly a lower level of learning effectiveness of e-learning platforms than that of the students. Less than 40% of the primary school teachers (39%) agreed or strongly agreed that the use of e-learning platforms could help students in their learning, with a mean rating of 3.31 (SD:0.66) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 was ‘strongly agree’(Table 6.74, [P5]TQ11d). There was no statistically significant difference in teachers’ and students’ level of agreement on the helpfulness of e-learning platforms to students’ learning in MS2.

Table 6.74 Teachers’ and students’ levels of agreement on the helpfulness of e-learning platforms to students’ learning ([P5]TQ11d, [P6]SQ12d)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels/ **

**Stakeholders ** **(1-5) ** **Strongly **

**agree ** **Agree Average ****Disagree ****Strongly **
**disagree **

**P-value**

MS1 3.86 0.86 971 235 ( 24 ) 411 ( 42 ) 285 ( 29 ) 29 ( 3 ) 11 ( 1 ) P4

MS2 3.85 0.89 992 240 ( 24 ) 432 ( 44 ) 264 ( 27 ) 40 ( 4 ) 16 ( 2 ) 0.999 MS1 3.65 0.84 1071 158 ( 15 ) 456 ( 43 ) 396 ( 37 ) 42 ( 4 ) 19 ( 2 ) P6

MS2 3.62 0.81 1004 123 ( 12 ) 452 ( 45 ) 369 ( 37 ) 44 ( 4 ) 15 ( 1 ) 0.845 MS1 3.31 0.66 1778 16 ( 1 ) 676 ( 38 ) 962 ( 54 ) 93 ( 5 ) 31 ( 2 ) Teachers

MS2 3.30 0.66 1757 18 ( 1 ) 645 ( 37 ) 964 ( 55 ) 102 ( 6 ) 28 ( 2 ) 0.749 Mean: 1=“Strongly disagree” and 5=“Strongly agree”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Students were satisfied with the services provided by school e-learning platforms **

Students were asked to comment on the speed of downloading or uploading information and the degree of convenience in searching learning content (Table 6.75, [P6]SQ12e). In MS1, about half of the students (62% of P4 and 52% of P6) were satisfied or very satisfied with the services provided by school e-learning platforms, with mean ratings of 3.76 (SD:0.88) and 3.54 (SD:0.87) respectively on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally not satisfied’ and 5 was ‘very satisfied’.

There was no statistically significant difference in students’ levels of satisfaction with the services provided by the e-learning platforms in MS2.

Table 6.75 Students’ levels of satisfaction with the services provided by school e-learning platforms ([P6]SQ12e)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels **

**(1-5) ** **Very **

**satisfied** **Satisfied ** **Quite satisfied**

**(一般) ** **Not satisfied** **Totally not **
**satisfied **

**P-value **

Levels of satisfaction with the services provided by the e-learning platform

MS1 3.76 0.88 971 205 ( 21 ) 395 ( 41 ) 319 ( 33 ) 36 ( 4 ) 14 ( 1 ) P4

MS2 3.74 0.93 992 212 ( 21 ) 412 ( 42 ) 298 ( 30 ) 43 ( 4 ) 28 ( 3 ) 0.954 MS1 3.54 0.87 1071 135 ( 13 ) 412 ( 39 ) 449 ( 42 ) 45 ( 4 ) 30 ( 3 ) P6

MS2 3.56 0.85 1004 114 ( 11 ) 435 ( 43 ) 379 ( 38 ) 53 ( 5 ) 23 ( 2 ) 0.315 Mean: 1=“Totally not satisfied” and 5=“Very satisfied”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Students perceived a higher level of proficiency in using e-learning platforms than teachers — a ****statistically significant increase was noted in teachers’ self-evaluated level of proficiency in ****using e-learning platforms in MS2 **

With respect to the proficiency of teachers and students in using e-learning platforms, it was notable in MS1 that only 22% of the teachers rated themselves as proficient or highly proficient and 33% rated not proficient or knew nothing about using these resources at all, with a mean rating of 2.80 (SD:0.94) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘know nothing at all’ and 5 was ‘highly proficient’ (Table 6.76, [P5]TQ11c). Higher proficiency in this aspect was reported by students. At least 60% of the students (61% of P4 and 60% of P6) claimed that they were proficient or highly proficient in using them, with mean ratings of 3.69 (SD:1.05) and 3.68 (SD:0.94) respectively on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘know nothing at all’ and 5 was ‘highly proficient’ (Table 6.76, [P6]SQ12c). A statistically significant increase was noted in teachers’ proficiency in using e-learning platforms (from 22% to 24%) in MS2. No statistically significant difference in P4 and P6 students’ perceived level of proficiency in this area was found in MS2.

Table 6.76 Teachers’ and students’ self-evaluated proficiency in using e-learning platforms ([P5]TQ11c, [P6]SQ12c)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels/ **

**Stakeholders ** **(1-5) ** **Highly **

**proficient** **Proficient ** **Quite proficient**
**(基本) **

**Not **
**proficient**

**Know **
**nothing at all **

**P-value **

Levels of proficiency in using e-learning platform

MS1 3.69 1.05 971 239 ( 25 ) 345 ( 36 ) 273 ( 28 ) 76 ( 8 ) 38 ( 4 ) P4

MS2 3.64 1.03 992 222 ( 22 ) 354 ( 36 ) 286 ( 29 ) 98 ( 10 ) 31 ( 3 ) 0.247 MS1 3.68 0.94 1071 207 ( 19 ) 441 ( 41 ) 316 ( 29 ) 88 ( 8 ) 19 ( 2 ) P6

MS2 3.61 0.85 1004 134 ( 13 ) 442 ( 44 ) 347 ( 35 ) 66 ( 7 ) 15 ( 2 ) 0.053 MS1 2.80 0.94 1773 29 ( 2 ) 358 ( 20 ) 805 ( 45 ) 385 ( 22 ) 196 ( 11 ) Teachers

MS2 2.89 0.90 1752 28 ( 2 ) 390 ( 22 ) 846 ( 48 ) 341 ( 19 ) 147 ( 8 ) 0.003**

Mean: 1=“Know nothing at all” and 5=“Highly proficient”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**6.4.2.2 Educational e-Portal: Hong Kong Education City (HKEdCity) **

Hong Kong Education City (www.hkedcity.net) is strongly promoted by the EMB as one of the online digital resources repository to support learning and teaching. It serves to provide quality digital resources for teachers, students, schools and the community.

**Over half of the students and 73% of the teachers visited the HKEdCity — a statistically ****significant increased usage by students was noted in MS2 **

With regard to the frequency of visiting the HKEdCity, over half of the students (53% of P4 and 56% of P6) in MS1 reported to have visited it. A statistically significant increase was noted in the percentages of students visiting the HKEdCity in MS2 (MS1: 53%-56%; MS2: 60%) (Table 6.77, [P6]SQ13a). In terms of the frequency of usage, of these, 70% of P4 and 72% of P6 respondents visited it 1 to 10 times a week while 18% of P4 and 10% of P6 respectively reported using it 11 times a week or more during the week prior to the conduct of the questionnaire survey. There was a statistically significant decrease in P6 students’ frequency of usage (from 19% to 14% for 5 to 10 times) in MS2 (Table 6.77, [P6]SQ13b). The usage by teachers, on the other hand, was relatively higher than the students. 73% of the primary school teachers reported that they made use of it to assist their teaching (Table 6.77, [P5]TQ13a). Among them, 75% and 5% used it 1 to 10 times a week and 11 times or more a week respectively during the week prior to the conduct of the questionnaire survey (Table 6.77, [P5]TQ13b). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of teachers visiting the HKEdCity and in their frequency of usage in MS2.

Table 6.77 The usage of the HKEdCity by teachers and students during the week prior to the conduct of the questionnaire survey ([P5]TQ13a,b, [P6]SQ13a,b)

**Percentage (%) choosing the option **

**P4 P6 Teachers **
**MS1 MS2 **

**P-value **

**MS1 MS2 **

**P-value **

**MS1 MS2 **
**P-value **

**(N=1781) (N=1927) ** ** (N=1943) (N=2040) (N=1828) ****(N=1799) **

Yes 53 60 56 60 73 73

No 47 40 0.000***^{ a}

44 40 0.001***^{a}

27 27 0.947^{a}

**Frequency (N=951) ****(N=1163) ****χ**** ^{2 }**(df=4)

**P-value (N=1088) (N=1230)****χ**

**(df=4)**

^{2 }

**P-value****(N=1340) (N=1317) χ**

**(df=4)**

^{2 }

**P-value**16 times or above 8 8 5 4 1 2

11 to 15 times 10 8 5 4 4 3

5 to 10 times 20 22 19 14 18 21

1 to 4 times 50 49 53 55 57 55

Nil 12 14

4.046 0.397^{ b}

18 22

15.48 0.004**^{ b}

21 19

8.39 0.078^{ b}

a. Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ^{b.} Chi-Square Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Students tended to be satisfied with the services provided at the HKEdCity **

When examining their opinions about the services provided by the HKEdCity, around half of the students (59% of P4 and 50% of P6 students) in MS1 were satisfied or very satisfied with the speed of downloading or uploading information and the degree of convenience in searching learning content provided by this website, with mean ratings of 3.71 (SD:0.93) and 3.47 (SD:0.92) respectively on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally not satisfied’ and 5 was ‘very satisfied’

(Table 6.78, [P6]SQ13e). There was no statistically significant difference in students’ level of satisfaction with the services provided at the HKEdCity in MS2.

Table 6.78 Students’ levels of satisfaction with the services provided by the HKEdCity ([P6]SQ13e)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels **

**(1-5) ** **Very **

**satisfied** **Satisfied ** **Quite satisfied**

**(一般) ** **Not satisfied** **Totally not **
**satisfied **

**P-value**

Levels of satisfaction with the services provided at the HKEdCity (Mean: 1=“Totally not satisfied” and 5=“Very satisfied”)

MS1 3.71 0.93 948 200 ( 21 ) 360 ( 38 ) 319 ( 34 ) 48 ( 5 ) 21 ( 2 ) P4

MS2 3.73 0.94 1163 244 ( 21 ) 480 ( 41 ) 351 ( 30 ) 57 ( 5 ) 32 ( 3 ) 0.437 MS1 3.47 0.92 1080 121 ( 11 ) 420 ( 39 ) 424 ( 39 ) 72 ( 7 ) 43 ( 4 ) P6

MS2 3.54 0.85 1230 157 ( 13 ) 468 ( 38 ) 516 ( 42 ) 64 ( 5 ) 25 ( 2 ) 0.129 Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Students perceived that learning contents of the HKEdCity were occasionally updated **

Less than half of the students (49% of P4 and 40% of P6) in MS1 considered that the learning contents of the HKEdCity were frequently or very frequently updated, with mean ratings of 3.53 (SD:1.03) and 3.30 (SD:0.94) respectively on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘never’ and 5 was

‘very frequently’(Table 6.79, [P6]SQ13f). There was no statistically significant difference in this area in MS2.

Table 6.79 Students’ perceived frequency for updating the learning content at the HKEdCity ([P6]SQ13f)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels **

**(1-5) ** **Very **

**Frequently** **Frequently ** **Occasionally**

**(間中) ** **Rarely Never **

**P-value**

Frequency for updating the learning content at the HKEdCity (Mean: 1=“Never” and 5=“Very frequently”)

MS1 3.53 1.03 945 191 ( 20 ) 274 ( 29 ) 357 ( 38 ) 87 ( 9 ) 36 ( 4 ) P4

MS2 3.47 1.04 1163 212 ( 18 ) 345 ( 30 ) 428 ( 37 ) 131 ( 11 ) 47 ( 4 ) 0.248 MS1 3.30 0.94 1079 116 ( 11 ) 310 ( 29 ) 480 ( 45 ) 134 ( 12 ) 39 ( 4 ) P6

MS2 3.28 0.93 1230 132 ( 11 ) 323 ( 26 ) 564 ( 46 ) 176 ( 14 ) 35 ( 3 ) 0.564 Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Teachers and students tended to perceive that the learning materials provided by the HKEdCity ****were suitable for students **

When asked about the suitability of learning materials provided by the HKEdCity, around half of the teachers (53%) in MS1 considered the learning materials provided by this website as suitable or very suitable for their students, with a mean rating of 3.51 (SD:0.60) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally not suitable’ and 5 was ‘very suitable’ ([P5]TQ13c). Similarly, about half of the students (58% of P4 and 47% of P6) found it suitable or very suitable for their learning, with mean ratings of 3.71 (SD:0.98) and 3.44 (SD:0.92) respectively (Table 6.80, [P6]SQ13c). There was no statistically significant difference regarding the suitability of learning materials provided by the HKEdCity for students in MS2.

Table 6.80 Teachers’ and students’ perceived levels of suitability of the learning materials provided by the HKEdCity for students ([P5]TQ13c, [P6]SQ13c)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels/ **

**Stakeholders ** **(1-5) ** **Very **

**suitable ** **Suitable ** **Quite suitable**

**(一般) ** **Not suitable** **Totally not **
**suitable **

**P-value**

Levels of suitability of the learning materials provided by the HKEdCity for students (Mean: 1=“Totally not suitable” and 5=“Very suitable”)

MS1 3.71 0.98 951 223 ( 23 ) 337 ( 35 ) 312 ( 33 ) 50 ( 5 ) 30 ( 3 ) P4

MS2 3.74 0.95 1163 266 ( 23 ) 448 ( 39 ) 357 ( 31 ) 64 ( 5 ) 29 ( 3 ) 0.541 MS1 3.44 0.92 1088 128 ( 12 ) 379 ( 35 ) 460 ( 42 ) 82 ( 8 ) 38 ( 4 ) P6

MS2 3.46 0.89 1230 139 ( 11 ) 452 ( 37 ) 511 ( 41 ) 96 ( 8 ) 33 ( 3 ) 0.455 MS1 3.51 0.60 1340 20 ( 1 ) 697 ( 52 ) 576 ( 43 ) 42 ( 3 ) 5 ( 0 ) Teachers

MS2 3.54 0.61 1317 41 ( 3 ) 668 ( 51 ) 574 ( 44 ) 31 ( 2 ) 3 ( 0 ) 0.417 Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

**Teachers, students and parents tended to perceive the HKEdCity to be effective in assisting ****students’ learning **

In terms of the learning effectiveness of the HKEdCity, 55% of the teachers, 59% of P4 and 49%

of P6 students as well as 40% of the parents in MS1 considered the HKEdCity to be effective or very effective in assisting students’ learning, with mean rating of 3.54 (SD:0.59), 3.69 (SD:0.94),3.46 (SD:0.92) and 3.39 (SD:0.66) respectively on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally not effective’ and 5 was ‘very effective’ (Table 6.81, [P5]TQ13d, [P6]SQ13d, [P7]PQ10c). There was no statistically significant difference in teachers’, students’ and parents’ perceived level of effectiveness of the HKEdCity in assisting students’ learning in MS2.

Table 6.81 Teachers’, students’ and parents’ perception of the effectiveness of the HKEdCity in assisting students’ learning ([P5]TQ13d, [P6]SQ13d, [P7]PQ10c)

**Mean ** **SD ** **N ** **Count (%) choosing the option **
**Class levels/ **

**Stakeholders ** **(1-5) ** **Very **

**effective** **Effective ** **Quite effective**

**(一般) ** **Not effective** **Totally not **
**effective **

**P-value **

Levels of effectiveness of the HKEdCity in assisting students’ learning (Mean: 1=“Totally not effective” and 5=“Very effective”)

MS1 3.69 0.94 951 193 ( 20 ) 367 ( 39 ) 318 ( 33 ) 51 ( 5 ) 23 ( 2 ) P4

MS2 3.71 0.96 1163 254 ( 22 ) 450 ( 39 ) 367 ( 32 ) 56 ( 5 ) 35 ( 3 ) 0.483 MS1 3.46 0.92 1088 126 ( 12 ) 399 ( 37 ) 451 ( 41 ) 68 ( 6 ) 44 ( 4 ) P6

MS2 3.48 0.89 1230 144 ( 12 ) 455 ( 37 ) 514 ( 42 ) 82 ( 7 ) 34 ( 3 ) 0.658 MS1 3.39 0.66 1602 53 ( 3 ) 592 ( 37 ) 880 ( 55 ) 66 ( 4 ) 10 ( 1 ) Parents

MS2 3.41 0.62 1801 51 ( 3 ) 702 ( 39 ) 981 ( 54 ) 64 ( 4 ) 3 ( 0 ) 0.561 MS1 3.54 0.59 1340 26 ( 2 ) 708 ( 53 ) 568 ( 42 ) 34 ( 3 ) 4 ( 0 ) Teachers

MS2 3.57 0.59 1317 41 ( 3 ) 694 ( 53 ) 559 ( 42 ) 22 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0.283 Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.