Questionnaire Survey Target groups

The questionnaires used in this Study were designed for four of the stakeholder groups indicated in the Conceptual Framework, namely, students, teachers (including IT Team members, and specialists/

therapists of special schools), school administrators (i.e. school heads) and parents. The questionnaire instruments were designed to survey various aspects of each target group in order to obtain data about the ITEd initiative effectiveness and to answer the research questions as set out in this Study.

According to the Conceptual Framework, each target group, while having its own contextual attributes (IT competency level, affective characteristics etc.), is subject to the stimuli of ITEd initiatives, the influence of a range of variables within the school and wider community environment and interactions with other stakeholders. The questionnaires were designed to survey the respondent’s observations and evaluations of various aspects of these inter-related components.

On the basis of the findings from the Pilot Study, comments of the respondents and EMB, some changes were made to the various questionnaires to improve their clarity and appropriateness for the research questions. The major changes included:

1. Adding new questions to the existing questionnaire based on comments or suggestions from EMB or other sources to tap into important new variables.

2. Modifying the existing questionnaire items to make them more aligned with the items of the Preliminary Study to enable charting of changes.

3. Modifying the wording or options to improve clarity of the question and/or enhance the appropriateness of the options given.

It should be noted that the instruments for students and parents included provision for identities to be coded using the student’s class name and number, hence making it possible to link students’ and parents’ responses. For the teachers’ instruments, a deliberate decision was made not to identify individual teachers, although the group responses for a school can be identified by school code. This was done for two reasons. First, in the Pilot Study, some teachers indicated that they might not respond frankly and honestly if there was a chance of their responses being traced back to them as individuals, even through the use of a coding system. Second, according to the Pilot Study experience, there was no cause to trace the teachers’ questionnaires back to individuals, and the school coding was found to be sufficient for the purposes of the Overall Study.

Some specific questions from the Preliminary Study were retained to allow comparison to be made.

Please refer to Appendix III for details of these.

School Heads’ Questionnaire

School heads were surveyed by the School Heads’ Questionnaire. There were 21 items in the questionnaires for Primary and Secondary Schools respectively and 20 items in the questionnaire for Special Schools. The items were designed to survey a broad range of facts and opinions as reflected by the school head:

Ÿ availability and nature and frequency of personal use of computers at home and at school, Ÿ self-reported competence levels and role in ITEd,

Ÿ availability and use of computers in school, Ÿ ITEd goals,

Ÿ availability, purposes and usefulness of computers as communications tools (e.g. school intranet), Ÿ expenditure on ITEd in school,

Ÿ usefulness of IT training for improving teaching/administration, Ÿ integration of ITEd in Key Learning Areas,

Ÿ impact of ITEd on students, teachers and curriculum, school administration and management, Ÿ factors/personnel contributing to and affecting planning and implementation of school IT policy, Ÿ resource and support requirements,

Ÿ promotion of and collaboration and sharing within school and wider community IT culture, Ÿ difficulties/obstacles with ITEd implementation,

Ÿ suggestions for future ITEd directions/implementation.

For the sampled schools (i.e. 150 primary schools, 150 secondary schools and 30 special schools selected for taking part in the Study – please refer to Section 5.2 for details), questionnaires for all target groups, including the School Heads’, were delivered to the schools by the fieldwork staff member(s) on the date of the conducting of fieldwork.

For the “non-sampled” schools (i.e., schools that were not selected to participate in the main part of this Study), the Heads’ Questionnaires were mailed to the schools, with covering letters from EMB and the PolyU Project Team. They were requested to return the completed questionnaires to the PolyU on or before 19 November 2003 either by ordinary post with enclosed self-stamped and self-addressed envelope, or by fax. If they had any queries regarding the Study, they could either contact the Project

Chapter 4: Methodology

Manager directly, or via E-mail set up specifically for the Study.

Follow-up calls were made to non-respondents immediately after the submission date of 19 November 2003. If needed, the questionnaire was faxed to or mailed to the schools again.

Teachers’ and Therapists’/Specialists’ Questionnaires

Teachers of Primary, Secondary, and Special Schools were surveyed by the Teachers’ Questionnaire.

Specialists/therapists in Special Schools were surveyed by a customised set of questionnaires based on the Teachers’ Questionnaires. As a key link in the Conceptual Framework, teachers receive ITEd stimuli in terms of professional training, hardware and software support, curriculum resource support and manpower support (in terms of ITC and TSS). As the front-line practitioners of ITEd, the teachers’

influence on and contribution to ITEd initiative effectiveness is important. The Teachers’

Questionnaire was designed to collect information about teachers’ use of IT and their views on various aspects of ITEd. There were 22 questionnaire items for primary/secondary schools and 24 questionnaire items for teachers of special schools (25 questionnaire items for the Specialists’/Therapists’ Questionnaire) designed to survey, among other things, the following aspects:

Ÿ availability and nature and frequency of personal use of computers at home and at school, Ÿ self-reported competence levels with IT and ITEd,

Ÿ availability and adequacy of resources and support for teaching,

Ÿ perceived changes in school and impact on teachers since launching of ITEd,

Ÿ frequency and nature of use of IT for teaching and administration (including student assessment), Ÿ participation in and satisfaction with IT professional development provided by different agencies, Ÿ difficulties/obstacles with ITEd implementation,

Ÿ preferred lessons for using IT and satisfaction with these, Ÿ specific hardware, software and applications used, Ÿ personal motivation to use IT.

The Specialists’/Therapists’ Questionnaire was modified to match better with their job duties and involvement in ITEd in the Special Schools. Moreover, open-ended questions were added to tap their opinions on what different assistive devices can assist the students in participating in ITEd activities and how this can be done.

All teachers/specialists/therapists from the sampled-schools were surveyed by the Teachers’/

Specialists’/Therapists’ Questionnaire. The PolyU fieldwork staff member(s) delivered the questionnaires (with return envelopes) to the school on the date of the fieldwork, and handed them over to the designated staff member, who was requested to distribute the questionnaires and return envelopes to the school staff concerned. The Project Team contacted the respective school representatives one week later, and arranged for the collection of the completed questionnaire.

Non-responses were followed up, if necessary, through the designated staff members of the school concerned.

IT Team Members’ Questionnaire

Those teachers who were also IT team members were invited to fill in the IT Team Members’

Questionnaire in addition to the Teachers’ Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to probe into the school’s adoption of IT in education, the difficulties encountered and the assistance required.

There were 5 items in this questionnaire, surveying the following:

Ÿ perceived usefulness of various stakeholders’ contributions to school IT policy and planning, Ÿ factors affecting school policy and planning,

Ÿ role of IT team in school, Ÿ resource support requirements,

Ÿ difficulties/obstacles with ITEd implementation.

The distribution and collection of the questionnaires followed the same method as that adopted for the Teachers’ Questionnaires.

Students’ Questionnaire

Students were surveyed by the Students’ Questionnaire. There were 31 and 32 items in the Students’

Questionnaire for Primary and Secondary/Special Schools respectively. Questionnaire items were designed to survey, among other things, the following aspects of students:

Ÿ availability and nature and frequency of personal use of computers at home and at school, including access to and use of Internet and school intranet and use in the school curriculum, Ÿ self-reported competence levels and role in ITEd,

Ÿ numbers of personal e-mail accounts and homepages,

Ÿ use of IT for school-related communication such as submitting assignments, Ÿ adequacy of resources and support for learning in school,

Ÿ preferred uses of IT in the school curriculum and preferred teacher practices in using IT in the curriculum,

Ÿ perceived impact of IT on personal learning, Ÿ encouragement from teachers to use IT,

Ÿ use and perceived usefulness of HKedCity for learning,

Ÿ support needed for using IT and availability and adequacy of support, Ÿ obstacles to learning because of school’s use of IT in teaching, Ÿ attitudes towards ITEd.

The questionnaires for Primary students and Secondary students were essentially the same, except for some slight variations to cater for different curriculum subjects offered. The Secondary Students’

Questionnaire contained one extra item to collect data about streaming and optional subjects taken by Secondary students. One special item (number 31) was included in the Students’ Questionnaire for special schools, regarding requirements for special assistive devices in IT use.

The Project Team called the designated staff member of each sampled school to explain the sampling method and arrange the date to conduct the Students’ Questionnaire Survey. The sampled students were gathered at a time and venue arranged by the School. The PolyU fieldwork staff member(s) explained to the students the purpose of the questionnaire, and stayed in the venue to answer questions if needed. Students were given 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire individually. The fieldwork staff member(s) then checked and collected the completed questionnaires from the students.

Parents’ Questionnaire

There were 11 items in this questionnaire, which focused on the following:

Ÿ Demographic information about the respondent (relationship with the student, highest level of education, and self-perceived level of IT literacy),

Ÿ home computer equipment and the student’s usage as perceived by the parent, Ÿ students’ need for support with IT and resources and support offered by parents, Ÿ the parent’s communication with the school by means of IT,

Ÿ student’s IT training participation outside school,

Ÿ the parent’s beliefs and attitudes about IT and ITEd, and its impact on student learning outcomes, Ÿ parents’ participation in IT training offered by school.

For all those students who were selected for IT Literacy Assessment, their parents were selected for a self-administered questionnaires survey. The school was requested to help distribute the questionnaires to the parents via the primary and secondary school students, and to collect the filled-in questionnaires

Chapter 4: Methodology

when completed.

The PolyU fieldwork staff member(s) delivered the questionnaires (with sufficient numbers of return envelopes) to the school on the date of the fieldwork, and handed them over to the designated staff member, who was requested to distribute the questionnaires and return envelopes to the students concerned and reminded them to collect and bring back the completed questionnaires to the school.

The Project Team contacted the respective school representatives one week later, and arranged for the collection of the completed questionnaires.

4.4.4 IT Literacy Assessment (ITLA)