School ITEd Plan

School heads were satisfied with their school ITEd plans and they perceived the highest level of satisfaction with their school ITEd plans covering the infrastructure requirements of schools In MS1, as shown in Table 6.50 ([P1]HSQ5a-g), school heads showed high level of satisfaction with their school ITEd plans. 81% of them were satisfied or very satisfied with the ITEd plans which covered the infrastructure requirements of schools. 82% of school heads were satisfied or very satisfied that clear visions and goals were stated in the school ITEd plan while 73% of them were satisfied or very satisfied that the implementation strategies and action plans were clearly listed in the school ITEd plan. 75% of school heads were satisfied or very satisfied that their schools would implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the ITEd plans seriously. 75% of school heads also were satisfied or very satisfied that teachers understood and participated in the school ITEd plan. Around 70% of school heads were satisfied or very satisfied with the ITEd plans which covered the content or measures of integrating IT into learning and teaching (72%) as well as teachers’ ITEd professional development (71%). The mean ratings ranged from 3.78 to 3.96 (SD:0.59-0.64) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally not satisfied’ and 5 was ‘very satisfied’. No statistically significant difference was noted in school heads’ satisfaction level with the aspects related to the school ITEd plans except “clear vision and goal(s) are stated in the school ITEd plan” (from 82% to 79%) and “the school ITEd plan covers the infrastructure requirements of the school” (from 81% to 77%) in MS2.

The most important goal in formulating school ITEd plans was to enhance learning and teaching effectiveness

In relation to the importance of setting different goals in the formulation of the school ITEd plans (Table 6.51, [P2]HQ1a-l), most of school heads regarded enhancing learning and teaching effectiveness (99%), improving students’ learning outcomes (97%), fostering students’

information literacy including information-processing skills and attitude (94%) and enhancing students’ understanding of subject content (94%) as important or very important goals in MS1.

The next three important goals were strengthening students’ initiative, independence and sense of responsibility in learning (92%), strengthening or developing students’ generic skills (88%) and providing suitable learning activities according to individual students’ needs (81%). All of the above items had mean ratings greater than 4.00 on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represented ‘totally not important’ and 5 represented ‘very important’. Around 70% indicated that integrating related-topics for studies and promoting collaboration amongst different subjects (77%), improving communication and co-operation among schools, parents and community (69%) and promoting learning through assessment (70%) were other important goals, with mean ratings between 3.78 and 3.91 (SD:0.65-0.73) on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represented ‘totally not important’ and 5 represented ‘very important’. Two goals which they rated as relatively less

important were meeting the expectations of parents and the community (62%) and providing training to prepare students for further studies or future careers (58%), with mean ratings of 3.61 (SD:0.79) and 3.67 (SD:0.69) respectively on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represented ‘totally not important’ and 5 represented ‘very important’. A statistically significant increase in school heads’

perceived level of the importance of the goal of promoting learning through assessment (from 70% to 77%) in formulating school ITEd plans was observed in MS2.

Table 6.50 School heads’ levels of satisfaction with the school ITEd plan ([P1]HSQ5a-g)

MS1 MS2

Mean SD N Count (%) of School Heads choosing the option Mean SD N Count (%) of School Heads choosing the option (1-5)

Very satisfied Satisfied Quite satisfied

(一般) Not satisfied Totally not satisfied

(1-5) Very

satisfied Satisfied Quite satisfied

(一般) Not satisfied Totally not satisfied

P-value

a. 3.95 0.59 551 76 ( 14 ) 376 ( 68 ) 92 ( 17 ) 7 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.81 0.77 445 46 ( 10 ) 306 ( 69 ) 67 ( 15 ) 13 ( 3 ) 13 ( 3 ) 0.041*

b. 3.80 0.62 551 52 ( 9 ) 347 ( 63 ) 143 ( 26 ) 9 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.69 0.73 445 26 ( 6 ) 291 ( 65 ) 99 ( 22 ) 21 ( 5 ) 8 ( 2 ) 0.108 c. 3.96 0.62 551 90 ( 16 ) 358 ( 65 ) 96 ( 17 ) 7 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.81 0.79 445 55 ( 12 ) 291 ( 65 ) 71 ( 16 ) 17 ( 4 ) 11 ( 2 ) 0.022*

d. 3.78 0.61 551 47 ( 9 ) 342 ( 62 ) 155 ( 28 ) 7 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.69 0.71 445 26 ( 6 ) 284 ( 64 ) 110 ( 25 ) 19 ( 4 ) 6 ( 1 ) 0.200 e. 3.83 0.64 551 64 ( 12 ) 336 ( 61 ) 143 ( 26 ) 8 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.72 0.73 445 35 ( 8 ) 284 ( 64 ) 99 ( 22 ) 21 ( 5 ) 6 ( 1 ) 0.131 f. 3.83 0.62 551 58 ( 11 ) 351 ( 64 ) 134 ( 24 ) 8 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.72 0.74 445 32 ( 7 ) 293 ( 66 ) 91 ( 20 ) 21 ( 5 ) 8 ( 2 ) 0.119 g. 3.87 0.64 551 74 ( 13 ) 342 ( 62 ) 127 ( 23 ) 8 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.82 0.76 445 51 ( 11 ) 303 ( 68 ) 60 ( 13 ) 24 ( 5 ) 7 ( 2 ) 0.851 Aspects related to the school ITEd Plan

a. Clear vision and goal are stated in the school ITEd plan.

b. The school ITEd plan covers the content/measures of integrating IT into teaching and learning.

c. The school ITEd plan covers the infrastructure requirements of the school.

d. The school ITEd plan covers teachers’ ITEd professional development.

e. The school ITEd plan clearly lists out implementation strategies and action plans.

f. The school will implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the ITEd plan seriously.

g. Teachers understand and participate in the school ITEd plan.

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

Table 6.51 School heads’ perception of the importance of different goals in formulating school ITEd plan ([P2]HQ1a-l)

MS1 MS2

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

(1-5)

Very

important Important

Quite important

(一般)

Not important

Totally not important

(1-5)

Very

important Important

Quite important

(一般)

Not important

Totally not important

P-value

a. 4.38 0.57 539 225 ( 42 ) 294 ( 55 ) 18 ( 3 ) 2 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.41 0.57 440 197 ( 45 ) 228 ( 52 ) 14 ( 3 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.341 b. 4.53 0.54 539 294 ( 55 ) 235 ( 44 ) 11 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.56 0.52 440 254 ( 58 ) 180 ( 41 ) 4 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.297 c. 4.22 0.55 539 151 ( 28 ) 355 ( 66 ) 32 ( 6 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.29 0.53 440 143 ( 33 ) 280 ( 64 ) 17 ( 4 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.060 d. 4.28 0.62 539 195 ( 36 ) 303 ( 56 ) 37 ( 7 ) 4 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.28 0.58 440 152 ( 35 ) 258 ( 59 ) 30 ( 7 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.769 e. 4.16 0.64 539 156 ( 29 ) 318 ( 59 ) 61 ( 11 ) 4 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.17 0.61 440 125 ( 28 ) 266 ( 60 ) 49 ( 11 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.934 f. 4.02 0.65 539 114 ( 21 ) 326 ( 60 ) 94 ( 17 ) 5 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4.04 0.60 440 87 ( 20 ) 283 ( 64 ) 69 ( 16 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.774 g. 3.61 0.79 539 56 ( 10 ) 259 ( 48 ) 192 ( 36 ) 24 ( 4 ) 8 ( 1 ) 3.68 0.80 440 58 ( 13 ) 215 ( 49 ) 136 ( 31 ) 29 ( 7 ) 2 ( 0 ) 0.212 h. 3.91 0.65 539 81 ( 15 ) 336 ( 62 ) 113 ( 21 ) 9 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.94 0.59 440 61 ( 14 ) 295 ( 67 ) 81 ( 18 ) 3 ( 1 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.471 i. 4.26 0.59 539 177 ( 33 ) 327 ( 61 ) 33 ( 6 ) 1 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 4.33 0.58 440 168 ( 38 ) 247 ( 56 ) 25 ( 6 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.084 j. 3.78 0.70 539 68 ( 13 ) 304 ( 56 ) 150 ( 28 ) 16 ( 3 ) 1 ( 0 ) 3.83 0.65 440 55 ( 13 ) 261 ( 59 ) 117 ( 27 ) 7 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.400 k. 3.82 0.68 539 76 ( 14 ) 303 ( 56 ) 149 ( 28 ) 11 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 3.92 0.66 440 73 ( 17 ) 265 ( 60 ) 95 ( 22 ) 7 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.026*

l. 3.67 0.69 539 47 ( 9 ) 288 ( 53 ) 185 ( 34 ) 17 ( 3 ) 2 ( 0 ) 3.73 0.67 440 49 ( 11 ) 232 ( 53 ) 152 ( 35 ) 7 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0.262 Goals

a. To improve students’ learning outcomes b. To enhance learning and teaching effectiveness

c. To enhance students’ understanding of subject content d. To strengthen students’ initiative, independence and sense of responsibility in learning e. To strengthen/develop students’ generic skills (e.g. analytical skills, creativity, collaboration skills) f. To provide suitable learning activities according to the needs of individual student g. To provide training so as to prepare students for further studies/future careers h. To integrate related topics for studies and promote collaboration amongst different subjects i. To foster students’ information literacy, including information-processing skills and attitude j. To improve communication and cooperation among school, parents and community k. To promote learning through assessment

l. To meet the expectations of parents and the community.

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

The top priority for school ITEd plans for the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years was to improve students’ use of IT in their learning

When asked about the three most important options to which schools gave priority to when setting ITEd plans for the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years (Table 6.52, [P2]HQ4), a relatively high percentage of school heads chose the options of improving students’ use of IT in their learning (73%) as the highest priority in the development of ITEd plans within their schools in MS1. Other important goals were improving digital resources and the IT infrastructure in schools (57%), strengthening teachers’ professional development on ITEd knowledge and its application (48%) as well as promoting the development of ITEd and building up the culture on the use of IT in school (47%). Striving for support from the community to initiate ITEd and encouraging parents’

participation in relevant activities (9%) was the lowest priority in school ITEd plans. A statistically significant decrease in percentage was observed in the percentage of school heads choosing the priority of improving digital resources and the IT infrastructure in schools (from 57% to 50%) in MS2.

Table 6.52 The priorities of school ITEd plan for the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years ([P2]HQ4)

Percentage (%) MS1

Priorities

(N=539)

MS2 (N=440)

P-value

To improve students’ use of IT in their learning 73 74 0.726 To improve digital resources and the IT infrastructure in school 57 50 0.034*

To strengthen teachers’ professional development on ITEd knowledge and its application

48 53 0.185

To promote the development of ITEd and build up the culture on the use of IT in school

47 45 0.643

To improve ITEd curriculum^# in school 34 35 0.696

To improve the implementation and evaluation of school ITEd Plan 31 32 0.676 To strive for community support to initiate ITEd and encourage parents’

participation in relevant activities

9 10 0.538

Others: (Please specify) 1 1 0.416

Three most important options; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

# ITEd curriculum refers to the application of IT in learning and teaching in each KLA (including computer/IT curriculum), to develop IT skills, and to foster the development of information literacy (information processing skills and attitude) and generic skills (e.g. collaboration skill and creativity etc.).

Teachers tended to perceive the Computer or IT curriculum as sufficient in supporting teachers to facilitate students’ use of IT in learning

When teachers were asked about the adequacy of Computer or IT curriculum in supporting teachers to facilitate students’ use of IT in learning, 47% of the primary school teachers in MS1 indicated that it was sufficient or very sufficient, with a mean rating of 3.40 (SD:0.71) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘totally insufficient’ and 5 was ‘very sufficient’. A statistically significant increase (from 47% to 50%) was observed in MS2 (Table 6.53, [P5]TQ26).

Table 6.53 Teachers’ perception of the levels of adequacy of Computer or IT curriculum in supporting teachers to facilitate students’ use of IT in learning ([P5]TQ26)

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

(1-5) Very

sufficient Sufficient Quite sufficient

(一般) Insufficient Totally Insufficient

P-value

Adequacy of Computer or IT curriculum in supporting teachers to facilitate students’ use of IT in learning

MS1 3.40 0.71 1826 42 ( 2 ) 816 ( 45 ) 829 ( 45 ) 108 ( 6 ) 31 ( 2 )

MS2 3.47 0.65 1790 46 ( 3 ) 840 ( 47 ) 819 ( 46 ) 73 ( 4 ) 12 ( 1 ) 0.023*

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

ITEd Team teachers tended to have considerable participation in encouraging teachers to make appropriate use of IT in teaching, but they tended to have some participation in exchanging experience and insight on the use of IT in teaching with other schools/regions/countries when implementing school ITEd plans

The ITEd Team teachers’ perceived levels of participation in different tasks when implementing ITEd plans is further explored. In MS1, surveyed ITEd Team teachers reported that they participated in all tasks to some extent with mean ratings of 3.06 to 3.46 (SD:0.91-1.18) on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was ‘none’ and 5 was ‘strong participation’ (Table 6.54, [P4]ITQ3a-m) except for the task of exchanging experience and insight on the use of IT in teaching with other schools/regions/countries [only 19% having considerable or strong participation and with a mean rating of 2.54 (SD:1.11)]. The three tasks in which most of the ITEd Team teachers rated themselves as having considerable participation or strong participation were encouraging other teachers to make appropriate use of IT in teaching (51%), formulating school-based ITEd plan (50%) and providing ITEd technical support for teachers (49%). Around two-fifths of them had considerable or strong participation in enhancing the fostering of information literacy in Computer/IT curriculum (42%) and across the KLAs (43%). There was no statistically significant difference in MS2 in all the tasks that ITEd Team teachers participated when implementing school ITEd plans.

The two major problems encountered by school heads in the implementation of ITEd plans were teachers’ heavy workload and lack of suitable educational software or digital resources while insufficient computer rooms and IT facilities were other problems indicated by school heads

School heads’ perceived difficulties or obstacles to the implementation of ITEd plans are reported in Table 6.55 ([P2]HQ3a-l). Among the listed difficulties, the top two problems often or most often encountered by school heads in the implementation of ITEd plans in MS1 were teachers’

heavy workload (48%) and the lack of suitable educational software or digital resources (32%).

32% and 29% of school heads respectively perceived that they often or most often encountered the problem of “insufficient computer rooms” and “insufficient IT facilities (e.g. computers and Internet facilities)” when implementing of ITEd plans while 44% and 45% of them respectively perceived that they rarely or never encountered this problem. Around 70% of school heads rarely or never encountered a lack of clear objective in adopting IT in learning and teaching (73%) as well as a lack of a concrete plan to encourage teachers to promote ITEd (66%). A statistically significant decrease was observed in all difficulties in MS2 except the difficulty of “the time which teachers need to prepare teaching materials with IT or participate in related ITEd professional development activities affects their teaching”, “the current teachers’ professional development programs cannot foster/develop the requisite IT skills for teachers”, “the school is in lack of concrete plan to encourage teachers to promote ITEd” and “insufficient technical support in school”.

From ITEd Team teachers’ point of view, in MS1, the top two difficulties that they frequently or very frequently encountered were insufficient IT facilities and digital resources from the EMB (34%) as well as insufficient time to cope with ITEd Team work (30%) (Table 6.56, [P4]ITQ4a-k).

A statistically significant decrease was observed in MS2 in the perceived frequency of the following difficulties: “insufficient IT facilities in school” (from 27% to 25%), “insufficient time to cope with the work of ITEd team” (from 30% to 22%) and “other teachers in school do not have sufficient time to adopt IT in teaching” (from 27% to 21%).

Table 6.54 ITEd Team teachers’ perceived levels of participation in different tasks when implementing school ITEd plan ([P4]ITQ3a-m)

MS1 MS2

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

(1-5)

Strong participation

Considerable participation

Some participation

(一般)

Little

participation None (1-5)

Strong participation

Considerable participation

Some participation

(一般)

Little

participation None

P-value

a. 3.44 1.07 334 56 ( 17 ) 109 ( 33 ) 115 ( 34 ) 35 ( 10 ) 19 ( 6 ) 3.31 1.03 332 39 ( 12 ) 108 ( 33 ) 120 ( 36 ) 47 ( 14 ) 18 ( 5 ) 0.084 b. 3.28 1.09 334 45 ( 13 ) 93 ( 28 ) 132 ( 40 ) 37 ( 11 ) 27 ( 8 ) 3.18 1.03 332 34 ( 10 ) 85 ( 26 ) 142 ( 43 ) 48 ( 14 ) 23 ( 7 ) 0.165 c. 3.34 1.07 334 48 ( 14 ) 101 ( 30 ) 120 ( 36 ) 45 ( 13 ) 20 ( 6 ) 3.22 1.04 332 36 ( 11 ) 94 ( 28 ) 133 ( 40 ) 46 ( 14 ) 23 ( 7 ) 0.160 d. 3.30 1.18 334 56 ( 17 ) 91 ( 27 ) 119 ( 36 ) 32 ( 10 ) 36 ( 11 ) 3.20 1.05 332 36 ( 11 ) 89 ( 27 ) 136 ( 41 ) 47 ( 14 ) 24 ( 7 ) 0.139 e. 3.46 0.97 334 42 ( 13 ) 127 ( 38 ) 121 ( 36 ) 29 ( 9 ) 15 ( 4 ) 3.35 0.99 332 36 ( 11 ) 116 ( 35 ) 124 ( 37 ) 40 ( 12 ) 16 ( 5 ) 0.147 f. 3.45 1.02 334 50 ( 15 ) 115 ( 34 ) 120 ( 36 ) 33 ( 10 ) 16 ( 5 ) 3.33 1.06 332 40 ( 12 ) 119 ( 36 ) 106 ( 32 ) 46 ( 14 ) 21 ( 6 ) 0.219 g. 3.15 1.06 334 30 ( 9 ) 96 ( 29 ) 130 ( 39 ) 49 ( 15 ) 29 ( 9 ) 3.03 1.09 332 26 ( 8 ) 83 ( 25 ) 138 ( 42 ) 44 ( 13 ) 41 ( 12 ) 0.174 h. 3.12 1.04 334 26 ( 8 ) 96 ( 29 ) 134 ( 40 ) 48 ( 14 ) 30 ( 9 ) 3.09 1.02 332 26 ( 8 ) 82 ( 25 ) 146 ( 44 ) 51 ( 15 ) 27 ( 8 ) 0.539 i. 3.10 1.15 334 38 ( 11 ) 85 ( 25 ) 125 ( 37 ) 45 ( 13 ) 41 ( 12 ) 3.02 1.04 332 22 ( 7 ) 84 ( 25 ) 136 ( 41 ) 58 ( 17 ) 32 ( 10 ) 0.259 j. 3.06 1.05 334 23 ( 7 ) 94 ( 28 ) 131 ( 39 ) 53 ( 16 ) 33 ( 10 ) 3.02 1.06 332 20 ( 6 ) 91 ( 27 ) 136 ( 41 ) 46 ( 14 ) 39 ( 12 ) 0.677 k. 2.54 1.11 334 12 ( 4 ) 50 ( 15 ) 124 ( 37 ) 69 ( 21 ) 79 ( 24 ) 2.63 1.08 332 16 ( 5 ) 48 ( 14 ) 123 ( 37 ) 87 ( 26 ) 58 ( 17 ) 0.389 l. 3.27 0.95 334 24 ( 7 ) 118 ( 35 ) 136 ( 41 ) 37 ( 11 ) 19 ( 6 ) 3.29 0.93 332 27 ( 8 ) 111 ( 33 ) 139 ( 42 ) 41 ( 12 ) 14 ( 4 ) 0.994 M 3.29 0.91 334 22 ( 7 ) 120 ( 36 ) 142 ( 43 ) 34 ( 10 ) 16 ( 5 ) 3.30 0.89 332 24 ( 7 ) 112 ( 34 ) 146 ( 44 ) 39 ( 12 ) 11 ( 3 ) 0.854 Tasks

a. To participate in formulating the school-based ITEd plan in school b. To set clear objectives and guidelines on IT infrastructure for school

c. To make recommendations to school on the allocation and use of IT facilities and digital resources d. To co-ordinate all matters related to ITEd in school

e. To encourage teachers to make appropriate use of IT in teaching f. To provide ITEd technical support to teachers

g. To provide ITEd professional development to teachers

h. To drive the school to become an exemplary model of making use of IT in teaching and learning i. To explore new technology (e.g. wireless network system) and develop innovative teaching methods j. To research and evaluate on the effectiveness of ITEd in school

k. To exchange experience and insight on the use of IT in teaching with other schools/regions/countries

l. To enhance the fostering of information literacy (e.g. information-processing skills and attitude) in Computer/IT curriculum m. To enhance the fostering of information literacy (e.g. information-processing skills and attitude) across the key learning areas Mean: 1=“None” and 5=“Strong participation”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Table 6.55 School heads’ perceived frequency of difficulties encountered in implementing of ITEd plan ([P2]HQ3a-l)

MS1 MS2

Mean SD N Count (%) of School Heads choosing the option Mean SD N Count (%) of School Heads choosing the option (1-5)

Most often Often Occasionally

(間中) Rarely Never (1-5)

Most often Often Occasionally

(間中) Rarely Never

P-value

a. 3.50 0.87 539 71 ( 13 ) 189 ( 35 ) 219 ( 41 ) 57 ( 11 ) 3 ( 1 ) 3.31 0.97 440 59 ( 13 ) 111 ( 25 ) 183 ( 42 ) 81 ( 18 ) 6 ( 1 ) 0.001**

b. 2.55 0.77 539 6 ( 1 ) 43 ( 8 ) 225 ( 42 ) 233 ( 43 ) 32 ( 6 ) 2.40 0.79 440 6 ( 1 ) 26 ( 6 ) 146 ( 33 ) 223 ( 51 ) 39 ( 9 ) 0.001**

c. 2.38 0.78 539 4 ( 1 ) 32 ( 6 ) 183 ( 34 ) 265 ( 49 ) 55 ( 10 ) 2.28 0.76 440 3 ( 1 ) 18 ( 4 ) 135 ( 31 ) 227 ( 52 ) 57 ( 13 ) 0.049*

d. 2.68 0.86 539 16 ( 3 ) 58 ( 11 ) 236 ( 44 ) 195 ( 36 ) 34 ( 6 ) 2.68 0.87 440 13 ( 3 ) 56 ( 13 ) 172 ( 39 ) 177 ( 40 ) 22 ( 5 ) 0.869 e. 2.61 0.90 539 13 ( 2 ) 66 ( 12 ) 207 ( 38 ) 206 ( 38 ) 47 ( 9 ) 2.53 0.86 440 7 ( 2 ) 45 ( 10 ) 164 ( 37 ) 184 ( 42 ) 40 ( 9 ) 0.170 f. 2.47 0.82 539 6 ( 1 ) 39 ( 7 ) 213 ( 40 ) 223 ( 41 ) 58 ( 11 ) 2.34 0.75 440 2 ( 0 ) 24 ( 5 ) 138 ( 31 ) 232 ( 53 ) 44 ( 10 ) 0.006**

g. 2.10 0.82 539 0 ( 0 ) 31 ( 6 ) 115 ( 21 ) 269 ( 50 ) 124 ( 23 ) 2.00 0.78 440 2 ( 0 ) 15 ( 3 ) 77 ( 18 ) 231 ( 53 ) 115 ( 26 ) 0.045*

h. 2.23 0.89 539 3 ( 1 ) 47 ( 9 ) 130 ( 24 ) 249 ( 46 ) 110 ( 20 ) 2.13 0.80 440 4 ( 1 ) 19 ( 4 ) 89 ( 20 ) 244 ( 55 ) 84 ( 19 ) 0.080 i. 2.38 0.99 539 15 ( 3 ) 51 ( 9 ) 163 ( 30 ) 207 ( 38 ) 103 ( 19 ) 2.27 0.92 440 10 ( 2 ) 23 ( 5 ) 129 ( 29 ) 190 ( 43 ) 88 ( 20 ) 0.071 j. 2.85 1.31 539 78 ( 14 ) 97 ( 18 ) 127 ( 24 ) 138 ( 26 ) 99 ( 18 ) 2.59 1.24 440 43 ( 10 ) 63 ( 14 ) 95 ( 22 ) 147 ( 33 ) 92 ( 21 ) 0.002**

k. 2.81 1.24 539 67 ( 12 ) 89 ( 17 ) 140 ( 26 ) 163 ( 30 ) 80 ( 15 ) 2.62 1.21 440 41 ( 9 ) 64 ( 15 ) 107 ( 24 ) 143 ( 33 ) 85 ( 19 ) 0.014*

l. 3.10 0.95 539 42 ( 8 ) 127 ( 24 ) 229 ( 42 ) 123 ( 23 ) 18 ( 3 ) 2.93 0.93 440 21 ( 5 ) 93 ( 21 ) 179 ( 41 ) 128 ( 29 ) 19 ( 4 ) 0.007**

Difficulties

a. The workload of teachers is so heavy that they cannot afford time to apply IT in their teaching b. Teachers lack ITEd knowledge/skills in applying IT in teaching

c. Teachers lack interest in using IT

d. The time which teachers need to prepare teaching materials with IT or participate in related ITEd professional development activities affects their teaching e. The current teachers’ professional development programs cannot foster/develop the requisite IT skills for teachers

f. The existing curriculum is not conducive to the use of IT for teaching in class g. The school does not have a clear objective in adopting IT in teaching and learning h. The school is in lack of concrete plan to encourage teachers to promote ITEd i. Insufficient technical support in school

j. Insufficient computer rooms

k. Insufficient IT facilities (e.g. computers and internet facilities) l. Lacking in suitable educational software/digital resources

Mean: 1=“Never” and 5=“Most often”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Table 6.56 ITEd Team teachers’ perceived frequency of difficulties encountered in promoting ITEd ([P4]ITQ4a-k)

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

Frequently Frequently Occasionally

(間中) Rarely Never (1-5) Very

Frequently Frequently Occasionally

(間中) Rarely Never

P-value

a. 2.65 0.82 334 8 ( 2 ) 38 ( 11 ) 131 ( 39 ) 144 ( 43 ) 13 ( 4 ) 2.55 0.88 332 8 ( 2 ) 33 ( 10 ) 122 ( 37 ) 139 ( 42 ) 30 ( 9 ) 0.128 b. 2.21 0.90 334 7 ( 2 ) 21 ( 6 ) 74 ( 22 ) 166 ( 50 ) 66 ( 20 ) 2.21 0.94 332 7 ( 2 ) 26 ( 8 ) 70 ( 21 ) 156 ( 47 ) 73 ( 22 ) 0.856 c. 2.50 0.92 334 11 ( 3 ) 30 ( 9 ) 111 ( 33 ) 145 ( 43 ) 37 ( 11 ) 2.42 0.97 332 12 ( 4 ) 33 ( 10 ) 83 ( 25 ) 158 ( 48 ) 46 ( 14 ) 0.135 d. 2.91 1.04 334 27 ( 8 ) 64 ( 19 ) 117 ( 35 ) 104 ( 31 ) 22 ( 7 ) 2.75 1.10 332 25 ( 8 ) 56 ( 17 ) 99 ( 30 ) 115 ( 35 ) 37 ( 11 ) 0.042*

e. 3.03 1.00 334 30 ( 9 ) 71 ( 21 ) 122 ( 37 ) 100 ( 30 ) 11 ( 3 ) 2.82 0.99 332 21 ( 6 ) 54 ( 16 ) 124 ( 37 ) 111 ( 33 ) 22 ( 7 ) 0.011*

f. 2.55 0.92 334 7 ( 2 ) 43 ( 13 ) 114 ( 34 ) 134 ( 40 ) 36 ( 11 ) 2.46 0.95 332 12 ( 4 ) 27 ( 8 ) 108 ( 33 ) 140 ( 42 ) 45 ( 14 ) 0.137 g. 2.44 0.93 334 8 ( 2 ) 31 ( 9 ) 107 ( 32 ) 141 ( 42 ) 47 ( 14 ) 2.38 0.94 332 9 ( 3 ) 28 ( 8 ) 95 ( 29 ) 148 ( 45 ) 52 ( 16 ) 0.341 h. 2.93 0.94 334 14 ( 4 ) 77 ( 23 ) 128 ( 38 ) 100 ( 30 ) 15 ( 4 ) 2.78 0.96 332 18 ( 5 ) 53 ( 16 ) 116 ( 35 ) 128 ( 39 ) 17 ( 5 ) 0.021*

i. 2.65 0.82 334 5 ( 1 ) 42 ( 13 ) 137 ( 41 ) 132 ( 40 ) 18 ( 5 ) 2.67 0.91 332 13 ( 4 ) 39 ( 12 ) 128 ( 39 ) 129 ( 39 ) 23 ( 7 ) 0.962 j. 2.47 0.82 334 4 ( 1 ) 26 ( 8 ) 127 ( 38 ) 144 ( 43 ) 33 ( 10 ) 2.49 0.90 332 8 ( 2 ) 34 ( 10 ) 106 ( 32 ) 150 ( 45 ) 34 ( 10 ) 0.929 k. 3.22 0.94 334 35 ( 10 ) 81 ( 24 ) 147 ( 44 ) 65 ( 19 ) 6 ( 2 ) 3.19 1.01 332 40 ( 12 ) 79 ( 24 ) 127 ( 38 ) 77 ( 23 ) 9 ( 3 ) 0.666 Difficulties

a. The school does not have a clear direction in developing ITEd b. The school is not enthusiastic enough in promoting ITEd

c. The school is in lack of implementation plan which co-ordinates the work of the ITEd team d. There are insufficient IT facilities in school

e. I do not have sufficient time to cope with the work of ITEd team f. My IT knowledge/skills is/are inadequate to deal with work of ITEd team g. Other team members lack a sense of involvement in ITEd works

h. Other teachers in school do not have sufficient time to adopt IT in teaching i. Teachers generally lack knowledge/skills in applying IT in teaching j. Teachers generally lack interest in using IT in teaching

k. There are insufficient IT facilities and digital resources from Education and Manpower Bureau Mean: 1=“Never” and 5=“Very frequently”; Mann-Whitney U Test: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

在文檔中 Final Report (Version: 3.0) (頁 114-122)