• 沒有找到結果。

A phenomenographic analysis of variations in secondary five students’ conceptions of web authoring techniques and applications ,以新視窗打開

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A phenomenographic analysis of variations in secondary five students’ conceptions of web authoring techniques and applications ,以新視窗打開"

Copied!
12
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)

A phenomenographic analysis of variations in

secondary five students’ conceptions of web

authoring techniques and applications

中五學生在網頁設計及應用層面上的學習概

念之變異分析

KWOK Lai Yin, Percy

HKCCCU Logos Academy

Abstract

In this paper, a phenomenographic approach was utilized to create learning spaces in which 182 Secondary Five students under the guidance of the teacher (the action researcher) learned to do projects on applying suitable web authoring techniques to construct school, school alumni and e-learning websites across three school years in a local school. By means of the knowledge-building principles in an online learning community, some qualitative patterns of learning variations on learning conceptions, applications and synthesis were articulated. Throughout the learning and teaching process, some learning and teaching conditions varied whilst others were kept invariant to articulate inter-student learning variations and thereby formulate feasible teaching approaches. Finally, some critical conditions for such learning variations were further conceptualized for increasing learning effectiveness, and implications for sustaining online learning community are drawn for further research.

Keywords

learning community, knowledge building, web authoring, project work, phenomenography

摘要

本文通過現象圖析學分析 182 位中五級學生在網頁設計及應用層面上的學習概念,尋找他們的學習變異, 從而建構嶄新的教學反思空間。在過去的三個學年中,學生在教師 ( 行動研究者 ) 的指導下,編寫學校、校 友及電子學習等網頁。在學與教層面上,基於網上學習社羣的知識建構原則,調整某些學與教條件而令其

(2)

他條件不變,從而探索學生相互的學習差異及改善教學策略。最後,通過行動研究反思,學習數變的某些 重要條件進一步被概念化,而網上學習社羣的持續發展也作深入討論。

關鍵字

學習社羣,知識建構,網頁設計,專題研習,現象圖析學

Introduction

Research findings using phenomenographic methods have demonstrated a limited number of qualitatively different means through which students, being unique in character, understand a particular phenomenon. Those different ways of phenomenal understanding necessarily involve cognitive discernment of a different set of critical aspects of the experienced phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997). If teachers pay close attention to such qualitative differences, they would gain better understanding of their students’ learning concepts and be able to bring about their meaningful learning, provided that they can build on their prior understanding and experiences. This current study aims to articulate patterns of student learning variations (experienced by the teacher) with intended and enacted objects of learning in a school-based continuous assessment of uses of web authoring skills for improving information-seeking effi ciency of school website, strengthening social functions of school alumni webs or enhancing e-learning concepts. As a result, the teacher (the action researcher) knew more about individual learning differences, and learned how to deepen their learning.

Literature review

Project-based learning or project work has been recognized as an important part of school

countries. Project-based learning provides pupils and teachers with opportunities to break away from the compartmentalization of knowledge and skills resulting from subject-area instruction. Broad themes are used to bring various aspects of the subject-based curriculum or cross-curricular ones together (esp. development of generic skills in Cheong & Goh, 2002). This will help pupils see the interconnectedness of their learning and develop their life-long learning skills like creative and critical thinking, communication, collaborative learning and self inquiry skills, which are good preparation for future workplace areas under knowledge-based economies. Indeed, project-based learning is a complex cognitive and meta-cognitive process, which requires both hands-on and minds-on learning. It is action-oriented and focuses on doing something rather than learning about something (Moursund, 1999). Although project-based learning is such an important aspect of school curricula, its school implementation raises great challenges to many East Asian societies with strong stresses on open examinations. How to combine individual-based project work (assessing student learning process) and written open examination papers (assessing student learning outcomes) at senior secondary levels is an interesting assessment issue.

Despite vast research literature on uses of computer-mediated or -supported technology

(3)

Puntambekar, 1997), there is still a lack of methodological parameters or theoretical frameworks accounting for individual learning differences among students in project work. Meantime, collaborative student learning using online learning platforms or knowledge building communities (Collins & Bielaczyc, 1997; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996) is infeasible in individual-based project assessment which is competitive in nature.

Recent research literature on the connections between public knowledge-building discourse and e-learning portfolios, and role of assessment in scaffolding students’ collaborative inquiry and understanding in computer-supported learning platform has discovered that knowledge-building electronic portfolios governed by some knowledge-building principles help access and facilitate collective knowledge advancement (Lee, Chan, & van Aalst, 2006). And web-based learning communities should provide scaffolds or foster epistemic agency in the form of knowledge-building principles for students to co-construct new knowledge at communal level (Chan & van Aalst, 2003). So the current study aims to articulate learning variations by conceptualizing qualitative differences in students’ co-constructing web-authoring knowledge with those knowledge building principles.

Notably, past phenomenographic research fi ndings mostly focus on student learning variations without the teacher’s perspective and there is insufficient empirical case study on articulating teachers’ learning spaces or spaces shared by students and the teacher (Marton & Morris, 2002; Marton & Tsui, 2004). To bridge such research gaps, the current study endeavors to articulate contextual inter-student learning variations on web authoring in an individual-based project work (combining formative and summative assessment)

using phenomenographic methods by addressing three research questions through teacher refl ections in action research settings:

1. What were the cognitive and meta-cognitive levels of student performance in online discussion when students captured web authoring knowledge and web publishing skills on doing project works?

2. What were the crucial patterns of inter-student variations in capturing web authoring knowledge and web publishing skills?

3. What feasible teaching strategies were utilized for increasing learning effectiveness through teacher refl ections in action research settings, based on some critical conditions of learning variation?

Theoretical framework

In phenomenography, learning is considered as a dynamic change in the state of awareness or ways of experiencing the phenomenal world (Marton & Booth, 1997). Throughout the learning process, varied and invariant patterns of learning necessarily involve steps of drawing contrasts, generalization, separation and fusion. Notably, discernment,

awareness and simultaneity are key components of

learning and closely linked together, each of which being a function of another. As a result, creating

a new learning space means opening up a new

dimension of learning variation, completely different from the take-for-granted nature of the absence of such variation (Marton & Morris, 2002, Marton & Tsui, 2004). In particular, the object of learning refers to those capabilities and necessary conditions in which students’ inherent characteristics, didactical interactions and learning environments are considered for achieving specific learning and

(4)

teaching goals. Current pedagogical discussion on student-centered and teacher-centered instructions merely focuses on general non-referential aspects of learning and teaching without paying great attention to specific referential aspects of learning and teaching. Phenomenographic approach focuses on how learning phenomena are being perceived by students in second-order perspective and student learning experiences should be understood in terms of human-world relationship (Marton & Pang, 2008). In the light of a specifi c object of learning, the space of learning is a specifi c characterization of didactical interactions in the classroom. In the teacher’s angle, the intended object of learning aims to achieve the teacher’s intended learning outcomes and teaching objectives whilst the enacted object of learning points to what the intended object of learning is actually enacted in the classroom specifically. Finally, the lived object of learning constitutes the ways of how students see, understand and make sense of the object of learning after and beyond the lesson (Marton & Tsui, 2004, pp.224-225).

Research design

1. Studying Subjects and Topics

A total of 78, 44 and 60 Secondary Five students were guided to reconstruct the existing school web to increase its information-seeking effi ciency, to devise school alumni web to strengthen

its social networking functions, and to develop e-assessment web for enhancing primary students’ self-learning in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Web information improvement included school announcements, schedules of extracurricular activities, open contests and fund-raising activities that fellow students might join and so forth. Technical concerns covered establishment of specific sub-pages where frequently updated information was given. Generic skills of using web-authoring software were provided, and fulfillment of the needs of various types of web surfers such as students, parents, teachers and the general public was made. In the school-based assessment (SBA) project, presentation contents were divided into two sections. Section one was to propose two desirable solutions, aiming at effi cient information seeking in 2007-08, to compare two social networking webs like Facebook and Myspace in 2008-09, and to compare several plausible e-learning webs in 2009-10 (40%). Section two was to design and create web layouts on illustrating how a web user might seek information efficiently using one of the proposed solutions highlighted in section one in 2007-08, to work out feasible web layouts of the school alumni web by comparing two social networking webs in section one in 2008-09 (c.f. figure 1); and to work out e-assessment learning system by connecting with previous conceptions of e-learning in section one in 2009-10 (60%).

(5)

2. Working Procedure

Originally, such school-based assessment (SBA) project (HKEAA, 2009) is so individual-based that it occupies 20% of the public examination in one of four elective modules called ‘web authoring and multimedia productions’. The duration of the project assignment lasted for six months for the two Secondary Five classes in a total of 78 students in 2007-08, 11 months for two Secondary Five classes in a total of 44 students in 2008-09, 10 months for three Secondary Five classes in a total of 60 student in 2009-10 before they sat for the remaining three written papers (occupying 80%). At the beginning, the teacher (the action researcher) endeavored to employ peer or group learning techniques to facilitate collaborative learning. An online discussion forum or a learning community was utilized to stimulate students to brainstorm, criticize and

Figure 1: Student discussion notes in an online learning platform

consolidate their preliminary knowledge about the studying problems, define key conceptual notions and technical terms found from search engines and other online references, and draft out timeframes and plan their necessary working stages. For the school year 2007-08, students did not have knowledge building principles whereas those in the school years 2008-09 and 2009-10 had some knowledge building principles (embedded in the online learning community and weekly practicum lessons) such as:

● progressive problem-solving discourse in

which students had duties to answer other’s questions and further raise other high-level questions at communal level (c.f. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993)

● collaborative efforts in which students helped

summarize ideas and formulate clearer concepts or solutions (c.f. Scardamalia, 2002)

(6)

● m o n i t o r i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n w h i c h

students recognized misconceptions and misunderstandings through mutual discussion (c.f. Scardamalia, 2002)

● constructive uses of authoritative sources

i n w h i c h s t u d e n t s c i t e d m o s t o n l i n e information sources and quoted online references with mutual criticism, integrated ideas collaboratively and even synthesized n e w c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k s ( c . f . Scardamalia, 2002)

Online discussion was carrying out till the student subjects submitted the first drafts of their individual projects.

3. Action Research Team

An action research team, consisting of the action researcher (the teacher), co-researchers and lesson observers (teaching consultants and university professors), was set up to carry out the iterative cycles of planning-acting-observing-reflecting on teaching and learning instructions through lesson observation, refl exive journal writings, surveys and interviews with the involved 182 student subjects and some of their parents (c.f. Somekh, 1995; The State of Florida, 2008). Suitable strategic changes and didactical adjustments were made after the resulting learning variations were being categorized or further conceptualized. The main direction of action research was to depict inter-student learning variations from teacher’s perspective, broaden teacher understanding of students’ learning conceptions and modifications on teaching, and fi nally deepen the usage of school-based assessment using phenomenographic methods. Peer observation and teacher self-refl ection on lesson studies followed

the Stigler & Hiebert’s (1999) scheme of : (a) defi ning the studying problem;

(b) p l a n n i n g , t e a c h i n g a n d e v a l u a t i n g the e-learning environment through pedagogical refl ections and peer review; (c) revising the involved lessons and modifying

the e-learning user-interface;

(d) teaching the revised lessons via stepwise evaluation and refl ection;

(e) finally sharing results on conceptions of e-learning.

Results

After formation of students’ concrete ideas during two-month trial period, sharing of ideas in the public domain of the online discussion forum or learning community was totally suspended for the fear that one’s original ideas would be borrowed by another under keen individualistic examination competition in 2007-08. For further improvement, the action researcher (subject teacher) tended to include those knowledge building principles in 2008-09, 2009-10 and even motivated students by informing them that some marks (5% out of 100 under the marking rubric) would be counted in an online learning community or a discussion platform. In comparison, students in 2008-09, 09-10 showed great improvement in learning motivation, self-reflections on working progress, justifying hypotheses using others’ opinions and even synthesizing others’ ideas raised from the online learning community. To answer research question one, some inter-student learning variations in using discussion notes in their reports are depicted in cognitive and meta-cognitive domains in table 1.

(7)

Table 1: Rating levels of student performance by using online discussion notes in 2008-09 and 2009-10

Level 1

(N=11 in 2008-09) (N=19 in 2009-10)

● simple defi nition or conceptual citation without criticism

● no citation of sufficient factual information for supporting arguments / no

confi rmation or falsifi cation of research hypotheses Level 2

(N=17 in 2008-09) (N=28 in 2009-10)

● conceptual elucidation and criticizing other ideas

● citation of sufficient factual information for supporting arguments without

confi rmation or falsifi cation of research hypotheses Level 3

(N=16 in 2008-09) (N=13 in 2009-10)

● in-depth conceptual exploration and extension of new ideas based on others’ or

synthesizing others’ ideas

● confi rmation or falsifi cation of research hypotheses

[Note: ‘N’ stands for the number of student subjects fulfi lling certain specifi ed learning patterns of variation in one particular school year]

Notably, the teacher built on new learning spaces by varying some learning aspects or didactical conditions whilst keeping other invariant, depicted in table 2 through stepwise reflections in teaching. Some students experienced new conceptions of learning and conceptual relationships on web authoring tools and web publishing techniques during school years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. On one hand, those learners with good articulation of research problem and skilful strategic research techniques could develop self-reflective working plans (placed at the beginning of their written reports), workable timeframes, and use illustrative diagrams and figures to visualize newly learned concepts or correlate their interrelationships. Some could find out their own research literature by themselves and even establish strong theoretical frameworks in which two desirable solutions were in juxtaposed comparisons and formulate clear-cut

key defi nitions or concepts, far beyond the scope of Secondary Five level. Some with strong motivation to get higher grades tended to study the rubric assessment descriptors closely to make their working steps or contents in line with those contextual descriptors.

On the other hand, those learners without good articulation of research problems or skilful strategic research techniques frequently delayed their submissions and requested the teacher for giving standardized formats, or concrete working directions. Concepts or misconceptions were loosely presented without any linkage between the two sections. There was no juxtaposed comparison of the two desirable solutions or commensurable parameters for comparing the solutions. To answer research question two, crucial patterns of inter-student learning variations on web authoring are summarized in the following table 3.

(8)

Table 2: Variations and invariant parameters during learning process

Learning Instructions Variation Invariance

Based on one particular info-seek-ing or social networkinfo-seek-ing mecha-nism, fi nd out suitable features of web publishing

Features for web construction or web publishing

Info-seeking, social networking mechanisms and e-learning conceptions

Under a web construction dimen-sion, compare effi ciencies of info dissemination and info-seeking or social networking mechanisms, evaluate their interrelationships

Effi ciency of info dissemination and info-seeking

Fruitfulness of social networking Usefulness of e-assessment

One particular or a fi xed set of web construction or publishing feature(s)

Using a particular desirable solu-tion, figure out feasible means for improving info-seeking, so-cial networking mechanism or e-learning

Means for improving info-seeking, social networking mechanism or self-learning in e-self-learning system

One particular solution

Based on one particular criterion, compare two feasible solutions

Two feasible solutions Commensurable criteria (through generalization)

To suit a certain group of web surfers, consider desirable aspects of efficient info-seeking, social networking or e-learning

Effi ciency concerns on info- seeking, social networking and e-learning

Certain type of web users

For one particular info-seeking feature, analyze needs of various types of web users

Various types of web users (similarities and differences and underlying reasons)

One fixed set for fulfilling efficient info-seeking, social networking or e-learning

Articulate possible dimensions for comparison of two solutions by considering one by one

Possible commensurable criteria for evaluating web authoring techniques and authoring tools

One chosen solution or web layout

Consider possible format of one solution when considering the combination of web authoring tools and web authoring techniques

Variety of web authoring tools and web authoring techniques

Fixing one solution or web layout

(9)

Table 3: Student Conceptions of Learning in Two Sections in 2007-2008, 2008-09 and 2009-10

Levels of understanding (total no. students for

each class) Student Conceptions of Learning Referential Aspects In Section One Structural Aspects Between Section One &

Section Two

0

07-08: N=26 (33.3%); 08-09: N=16 (46.3%); 09-10: N= 23 (38.3%)

No comparisons Simple formats of solutions without theoretical inputs

No linkage between section one and section two

1

07-08: N=13 (16.7%); 08-09: N=6 (13.6%); 09-10: N= 16 (26.7%)

Mere description of the two solutions without commensurable parameters

Formats of solutions articulated without self-refl ection or practicality concern

No linkage between section one and section two

2 07-08: N=18 (23.0%); 08-09: N=11 (25.0%); 09-10: N= 12 (20.0%) Juxtaposed comparisons under commensurable dimensions Commensurable items increasingly added to enrich contents of two solutions in section one, and rational choice of the preferable solution in section two

Loosely connecting between section one and section two

3

07-08: N=21 (26.9%); 08-09: N=11 (25.0%); 09-10: N=9 (15.0%)

Penetrating comparisons Refl exive articulation of commensurable dimensions and conceptual reformulation of the two solutions and consistent illustration

Linking the two sections tightly, developing ability to differentiate between two sections

[Note: ‘N’ stands for the number of student subjects fulfi lling certain specifi ed learning patterns of variation in one particular school year (in quoted percentages)]

The teacher (action researcher) experienced spaces of learning for deepening understanding of inter-student learning variations on advancing information-seeking, strengthening social networking capabilities and broadening student conceptions of e-learning in multiple perspectives. From the teacher perspectives, the student subjects experienced methodological and contextual variations in approaching the studying problems by building communal sharing areas in which they could appreciate other interpretations, correlate with their own and even make self improvements.

Some critical conditions accounting for such learning variations included:

● no persistency in finishing research item

strategically

● failure in linking previous conceptions of web

authoring techniques to the studying problem

● no indication for improving the research design

further when polishing the project works

● no communal sense of engagement in online

learning community and no sustainable development of online discussion

(10)

For resolving problems of individual learning differences, the teacher reflected that basic conceptions of doing research, web 2.0 and e-learning (especially e-assessment) needed to be grasped by the majority of students through mass lessons and group tutorials whereas advanced and preliminary techniques in web authoring could be mastered by high-achievers and low-achievers respectively through individual consultation.

To answer research question three, based on the above critical conditions, feasible teaching strategies for increasing learning effectiveness included:

● continuation to provide individual or

communal guidance through the e-learning community platform

● in-person consultation on modifying

under-achievers’ action time plans with achievable tasks and refining research problems by sharpening research foci

● constant revision of the assessment rubric

scale and descriptors in the process of conceptualizing those inter-student variations (in tables 2 and 3) for achieving an authentic assessment system

Discussion

Owing to the limited length, this paper could not trace out how the online discussion forum or learning community fosters those students’ high-order thinking in the involved projects in the two school years. Nor could the paper evaluate the learning effectiveness of the phenomenographic approach on depicting intra-student learning variations over time.

In an online learning community or ecology models, there arise some potential membership

technical establishments, some web-based learning communities or ecologies may fail to attain high-level communal or knowledge co-construction stages and even fail to sustain after their formation, subject to social cultural barriers (Gilbert & Driscoll, 2002). In the current study, those Secondary Five students were accustomed to competitive open examination. Despite the fruitfulness of collaborative learning enhanced through online discussion forum or learning community at the very beginning, student subjects were not fully engaged in collaborative online knowledge-building discourse after the first training periods. Indeed they did not share a good communal sense of knowledge building on web authoring. Subsequently, online learning community was not sustained and some student subjects failed to integrate online discussion notes into their project work, fully reflected in one of the above critical conditions. For further research, learning design should be aligned with modes of educational assessment and more marks should be allocated to group-based discussion through online learning community. Perhaps this is a big challenge to Hong Kong’s and other East Asian curricula, in which written papers in the form of

individual-based summative assessment usually occupy higher

proportions of examination marks. Last but not the least of all, some future try-out action research studies should incorporate more knowledge-building principles (accommodating student learning variations) for investigating the effectiveness of individualist and communal co-construction of new knowledge through online discussion forum or learning community.

(11)

gratitude to the involved students, co-researchers, lesson inspectors (university professors, and school teaching colleagues) during the study. Without their warm participation and support, the study could not have completed so smoothly. Since earlier versions of the paper were presented at some international

conferences in computer and IT education in the past two years, the author was greatly indebted to those fruitful comments made by the conference session chairs and blind reviewers of the published conference proceedings.

References

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of

expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

Chan, C.K.K., & van Aalst, J. (2003). Assessing and scaffolding knowledge building: Pedagogical knowledge building principles and electronic portfolios. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, and U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for

change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 21-30). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cheong, S. C., & Goh, C. C. M. (Eds.). (2002). Teachers’ handbook on teaching generic skills. Singapore: Prentice-Hall. Collins, A., & Bielaczyc, K. (1997). Dreams of technology-supported learning communities. Proceedings of the

sixth International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction, Taiwan.

Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: a case study. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 50 (1), 59-79.

Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) (2009). School-based assessment (SBA). Retrieved January 25, 2009, from: http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/sba/

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Education Media

International, 38 (4), 281-287.

Janassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building.

International Journal for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57-87.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marton, F., & Morris, P. (Eds.) (2002). What matters? Discovering critical conditions of classroom learning. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgenisis.

Marton, F., & Pang, M.F. (2008). The idea of phenomenography and the pedagogy for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 533-559). London: Routledge.

Marton, F., & Tsui, A. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwan, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

(12)

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using IT. Eugene, Or.: International Society for Technology in Education. Puntambekar, S., Nagel, K., Hübscher, R., Guzdial, M., & Kolodner, J.L. (1997). Intra-group and Intergroup: An

Exploration of Learning with Complementary Collaboration Tools. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds),

Proceedings of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 207-214). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.),

Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Student communities for the advancement of knowledge. Communications

of the ACM, 39 (1), 36-37.

Somekh, B. (1995). The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: A position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21 (3), 339-355.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education

in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

The State of Florida, Department of Education, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services. (2008).

Improving student learning through classroom action research. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2008, from: http://reach.ucf.

數據

Figure 1: Student discussion notes in an online learning platform
Table 1: Rating levels of student performance by using online discussion notes in 2008-09 and 2009-10
Table 3: Student Conceptions of Learning in Two Sections in 2007-2008, 2008-09 and 2009-10 Levels of understanding

參考文獻

相關文件

Last but not least, a summary of the structure and characteristics of Venerable Master's thoughts of Humanistic Buddhism is presented to describe how Humanistic Buddhism, as

Reading Task 6: Genre Structure and Language Features. • Now let’s look at how language features (e.g. sentence patterns) are connected to the structure

Building on the strengths of students and considering their future learning needs, plan for a Junior Secondary English Language curriculum to gear students towards the learning

Quality kindergarten education should be aligned with primary and secondary education in laying a firm foundation for the sustainable learning and growth of

Building on the strengths of students and considering their future learning needs, plan for a Junior Secondary English Language curriculum to gear students towards the

In the revised secondary mathematics curriculum, further applications of mathematical knowledge in more complex real-life situations, which require students to integrate their

1.5 In addition, EMB organised a total of 58 forums and briefings (45 on COS and 13 on special education) to explain the proposals in detail and to collect feedback from

Learning elements of the knowledge contexts at junior secondary level in the TEKLA Curriculum Guide was enriched to give students a broad and balanced. foundation on