How far has Hong Kong advanced during the 21st century on the road towards transforming learning compared to its international peers?
Nancy Law Centre for Information Technology in Education
University of Hong Kong
Curriculum Reform Efforts in HK since 2000
Curriculum Reform Efforts in HK since 2000
Curriculum Reform Efforts in HK since 2000
IT in education strategic plans in Hong Kong
1998
2004
2008
Empowering Learning and Teaching with Information Technology
Information Technology for Learning in a New Era
Right Technology at the Right Time for the Right Task
What have we achieved in all these reform efforts?
How do we compare with our neighbours in the region and countries in Europe?
What have we learnt from our past reform efforts?
Have our pathways of change/reform been effective at different levels of the system, from classroom to the entire education community?
How can we improve our innovation/reform efforts to achieve sustainability and scalability as a system?
QUESTIONS TO BE EXPLORED
Teachers are NOT the only actors for change in the classroom: nested ecologies in the global education biosphere
Source: Influences of IT in the global biosphere of education, including nested ecologies (source: Davis, 2008, p. 509)
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/SCALECCR.html
Ecological model—a new way of looking at change and innovation
Not simple diffusion, dissemination
Multiple nested levels of change
Sustainability is NOT maintaining the status quo
Scalability is NOT replication
Change is the norm, and innovations will only be sustainable if there is evolution—the environment is always changing
SCALE CCR was designed as an ecological approach to studying the scalability of innovations
5-dimensional framework for characterizing learning innovations
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=5159
Nature of Innovation
Impact Area
Target
Access Level
Implementation Phase
Disruptive
Mainstream
Cross-border Organization
Wide Range of Actors
Radical
Incremental
Scale Pilot
Regional/National
Local
Service
Process
Multiple Actors Single
Actors
Nature of Innovation
Impact Area
Target
Access Level
Implementation Phase
Disruptive
Mainstream
Cross-border Organization
Wide Range of Actors
Radical
Incremental
Scale Pilot
Regional/National
Local
Service
Process
Multiple Actors Single
Actors
Why focus on innovation?
Why study ICT-enabled innovations?
Why focus on sustainability & scalability?
Acknowledgement: slides on eTwinning from Dr Yves Punie, European Commission
34 countries 1 CSS - 35 NSSs 25 languages 200,000+ registered users 105,000+ schools 28,000+ projects (~5,000 active)
Scale and geographical coverage
http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/news/press_corner/statistics.cfm
A Lifelong Learning Programme initiative
- within Comenius Launched January
2005
2005-2008 Phase 1: Collaborative projects
2008-2013 Phase 2: The community for schools
2014 Entering Phase 3 Widening and deepening
« Erasmus for all »
Brief history #1
Brief history #2
Source: Vuorikari, 2010
eTwinning stakeholders
eTwinners Teachers from various participating countries
Central Support Service - General co-ordination (run by European Schoolnet) - Platform, services (service provider, data processor) National Support Service in each participating country EC (contractor, data controller)
Cross-border collaboration in eTwinning
Mapping eTwinning
JRC -IPTS in collaboration with European Schoolnet (Jan to Dec 2012) Target: Primary and secondary schools Focus: notion of 1:1 learning rather than 1:1 device Inclusion criteria: • ‘True’ 1:1 initiatives according to the definition: “equipping all students of a
given school, class or age group, with a portable computer device” • Launched within an educational framework • Recent 1:1 initiatives at local, regional, national or international level • Significant scale and/or impact
The 1:1 Learning study
31 recent initiatives in 19 European countries, 47.000 schools, 17,5 million students
1:1Learning study
Laptops and netbooks in most of the cases; tablets in some cases; smartphones in few initiatives
Local/regional pilot
System-wide pilot
System-wide implementation
Pedagogical theory underpinning innovation
Outcomes from 1:1 Learning
28
• Improved participation levels and students’ motivation • Extended learning opportunities outside the school • Student ownership important (-> BYO device) • Development of 1:1 pedagogies • Mixed results on learning outcomes
• Impact beyond technology: CPD, Training, School organizational practices, involvement of parents, etc.
• Shift from initial 1to1 devices to 1to1 Learning
• Different funding models but sustainability is an issue
Mapping 1:1 learning
Hellerup School, Denmark
public primary and lower secondary school (6-16 years old), since 2002
750 pupils and 65 teachers and assistants
Keywords: flexibility, creativity, learning styles and systemic innovation
Implements a systemic approach to educational innovation that involves and impacts the whole school community.
Innovative physical space – Emphasis on stakeholder and user participation in the design process
Hellerup School, Denmark
Integrated flexibility for learning: no classrooms, personalized and self-regulated learning
Wi-fi everywhere, BYOD, mobile learning
Teachers work autonomously in small teams
Wide-ranging partnerships (e.g. European SchoolNet)
Distributed leadership
Hellerup school
Mapping Hellerup School
1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Hellerup school
Mapping the three cases
Singapore’s Masterplan for ICT in Education (mp3)
Chee-Kit LOOI
National Institute of Education (NIE) Nanyang Technological University
Singapore
34
Presentation in CSCL 2013
Need for ICT in Ed Masterplans
• Human capital development – key national focus
• Alignment of economic, manpower & education policies
• ICT in Ed: – Preparation for knowledge-based environment – Enhance learning experiences
Acknowledgements: Slides 3-8, 11-12 are courtesy of Dr Cheah Horn Mun, Director, Educational Technology Division, Singapore
ICT in Ed Masterplan Journey
Building the Foundation
Seeding Innovation
Strengthening & Scaling
Masterplan 1
Masterplan 2
Masterplan 3
Building the Foundation 1997: Masterplan 1
Core ICT Training for all teachers
ICT Infrastructure & Support for all
schools
Educational software &
resources for relevant subjects
ICT became an accepted tool for teaching & learning
2003: Masterplan 2 Seeding Innovation
Baseline ICT Standards for all FS@SG
5% schs
LEAD ICT Schools
15-20% schs
Remaining Schools
Gave autonomy through devolved
ICT funds
Generate innovative practices through schemes
Established Baseline ICT
Standards for pupils
Orientation of the Innovation – Intended Outcomes
Confident Person Thinks independently
Communicates effectively Has good inter-personal skills
Self-directed Learner Takes responsibility for own learning
Questions, reflects, perseveres Uses technology adeptly
Concerned Citizen Is informed about world and local affairs
Empathises with and respects others Participates actively
Active Contributor Exercises initiative and takes risks Is adaptable, innovative, resilient
Aims for high standards
‘Curriculum 2015’ Student Outcomes
mp3 Goal Students develop competencies for self-directed and collaborative learning through the effective use of ICT as well as become discerning and responsible ICT users
Strengthening and Scaling 2009: Masterplan 3
Necessary Transformation
Curriculum, & Assessment
Professional Development
Research & Development
Infrastructure for Learning
1st Masterplan Build Foundation
2nd Masterplan Seed Innovation
3rd Masterplan Strengthen & Scale
~ ICT supporting curriculum
~ ICT integrated into curriculum &
assessment
~ ICT embedded into syllabuses & teaching guides
~ Core training for all teachers and school
leaders
~ Differentiated Prof Development ~ Consultancy to
school leaders
~ ICT Mentorship ~ Professional
Learning Communities
~ Spearheading R&D efforts in
collaboration with industry & schools
~ Seeding innovation in
schools
~ Translating research
to influence classroom practices
~ Central provision to equip all schools ~ One-size-fits-all
~ Flexible provision to suit
schools needs
~ Closer alignment to
curriculum changes and
schools needs
Nature of Innovation
Impact Area
Target
Access Level
Implementation Phase
Disruptive
Mainstream
Cross-border Organization
Wide Range of Actors
Radical
Incremental
Scale Pilot
Regional/National
Local
Service
Process
Multiple Actors Single
Actors
Mapping mp3 to the spider framework
What are the most important impacts?
• A cultural change has permeated the schools – there is a sense of readiness of school leaders, teachers
and students to embrace and use ICT. • The floor is raised with regard to the integration of ICT
into the curriculum – The type of adoption and adaptation varies across schools,
and within a school, across teachers • Teachers have encouraged students’ SDL and CoL by
harnessing the use of ICT – But they tend to associate SDL with fulfilling formal
curricular goals, giving less emphasis on encompassing informal learning pursuits
42
How relevant is CSCL and Learning Sciences research to large-scale education reform?
• mp3 has a specific focus on CL! • MOE folks are investing into assessment of CL
(Centralized top-down) – Policy-makers are more informed by research
communities of CSCL and Learning Sciences • Centralized bottom-up innovations like
GroupScribbles, Knowledge Building, and productive failure have spread to many schools – Different school profiles, different contexts – Schools` are taking more ownership of these
innovations 43
How relevant is CSCL and Learning Sciences research to large-scale education reform?
• As CSCL and LS researchers , we also need to: – Study and enable distributed leadership
• so that collective decisions can be made at every level of the school system, increasing accountability and buy-in
• enable leadership sustainability when there is change in leaders.
– Continue to finetune and distill critical success factors for the innovations
• so that all actors are aware of the non-negotiables of policy implementation and lesson enactment
44
What unique contributions can research on learning make to the sustainability and scalability of ICT-supported learning innovations in schools?
• First, that we know enough about improving the teaching and learning to engage in large-scale implementation of the education we envision (Sabelli, 2010).
• Second, that we do not yet know enough about expanding, disseminating, accessing, and sustaining what we already know.
Based on these premises, we must engage in the second:
• Implementation research— to achieve long term, sustainable, improvements in education. 45
Implementation: Centralized or de-centralized?
Top-down or bottom-up?
46
Centralized Top-Down
Decentralized Top-Down
Centralized Bottom-up
Decentralized Bottom-up
mp3 strategies
47
Coordination, management and evaluation by MOE
A tier structure comprising FutureSchools, LEAD school and mainstream schools for experimentationand diffusion
Defining key constructs like SDL and CoL
Installing ICT champions, ICT Mentors, baseline ICT standards for students
Supporting school-based innovation Supporting research & development by university researchers Supporting schools to launch their own ICT initiatives with funding from the eduLab programme
School-based innovations Partnerships with university researchers & industry
Centralized Top-Down
Decentralized Top-Down
Centralized Bottom-up
Decentralized Bottom-up
Case Study from Hong Kong
From e-Learning Pilot Scheme to Scalable e-Learning Innovations: Wishful thinking or reality?
Pilot proposals awarded: 21 projects, 61 schools
jjj 21 projects are pioneering for the future of elearning in Hong Kong in the 3 years (2011-2014): ➚ Model of elearning ➚ Model of professional development and school change ➚ Model of partnership with different stakeholders ➚ Model of scaling up innovation
Main goals of e-learning pilot scheme http://edbsdited.fwg.hk/e-Learning/eng/
IT in education strategic plans in Hong Kong
1998
2004
2008
Empowering Learning and Teaching with Information Technology
Information Technology for Learning in a New Era
Right Technology at the Right Time for the Right Task
Is this a top-down or bottom-up innovation?
What are the pilot schools’ vision for ICT use?
Objectives No. of schools
Category
Enhance communication between teachers and students 2 Communi-
cation Enhance communication between parents and school 2
Reduce administration workload 3 Adminis-tration
Foster students’ self-directed learning 7
L & T
Provide a student-centered learning environment 3 Cater for individual differences 2 Nurture information literacy 3 Enhance other 21st C skills (e.g. creativity, problem solving) 3 Facilitate assessment for learning 6 Promote sharing culture 2 Others
What do the pilot projects focus on?
Is there evidence that this elearning pilot scheme has benefited from previous ITE experiences?
L & T focus Information
literacy Self-directed
learning Creativity
Catering for individual differences
Assessment for learning
Motivate learning
Building a learning
community
Promote a sharing culture
No. of projects 6 11 4 10 7 4 2 4
Difficulties reported by the pilot projects
Parental concern on use of e-textbook—do not know how to help their children to revise
Teachers’ concerns Inadequate experience in e-learning pedagogy Doubt about the effectiveness of the e-learning pilot Concern about electronic devices as a distraction to studies Heavy workload
Scaling up and sustainability of project at the end of the pilot scheme
Teacher learning for pilot scheme teachers
Schools were expected to build in innovation-specific professional development costs and to arrange such by themselves
Education Bureau only offered ad hoc training on some new technologies
The longitudinal evaluation study reveals that teachers are not pedagogically ready in most of the project schools
Learning/Pedagogical orientations of the innovations
General directive for TEL to support transformations in education, not “translations” (digitized versions of traditional teaching & learning), the discourse does NOT involve learning/pedagogical theories.
Selected projects reveal that the selection panel does not :
Differentiate self-accessed mastery learning from self-directed learning
Understand that constructivist forms of learning to cater for learner diversity need to go together with socially-organized, inquiry-oriented forms of learning organization
That knowledge construction depends on both learners’ individual agency and collective cognitive responsibility
What impact, if any, does this agnostic stance towards learning theories at policy level have on HK’s ability to learn from past innovations?
What are the important impacts so far?
The projects act as hubs of activity for continuing experimentation with technology-enhanced learning (TEL)
Some projects are fostering learning communities around TEL practices
The Education Bureau is trying to build communities for sharing of experience and resources
Link with previous/other innovation projects
How the current scheme builds on previous initiatives is not clear
Innovative practices that emerged in 1999 is still innovative and rare!
Understanding about 21st C outcomes, assessment, etc. have not advanced much
Link with literature on learning sciences & TEL
ITE related policy makers have been exposed to many scholars and their theories related to learning and TEL
Policy initiatives have generally taken an agnostic stance towards learning theories so that a hundred flowers can blossom
At school level, principals and teachers are becoming more exposed to learner-centered pedagogy, changes at the practice level are still slow
Link with literature on innovation, change & sustainability
Policy makers, school leaders & teachers have been exposed to world renown scholars such as Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves
Concept of e-leadership is still vague & taken more from an administrative managerial perspective
Not much awareness of learning leadership at various levels of the pilot scheme
Prospects for further development
Not sure, the government has not made announcements on plans beyond the current pilot scheme
Recent change in Government, not sure about policy continuity for e-Learning
There have been pilot schemes of various sorts before, but no clear pathway of continuing progress/development
What is the key take-away lesson?
Our ICT-enabled creative classroom innovations would
not be sustainable or scalable without ensuring
deep learning at the system and institutional levels about
what happens at the micro-level
LEARNING THEORIES MATTER! Education Innovations & Reform Need Learning Scientists
Multiple pathways and sources of agency for change and innovation
ICT’s innovation role & its sustainability
The nature of technology used and their roles in the seven innovations
Scale, impact and strategic leadership: importance of constructive alignment
Key agencies, strategic focus & mechanisms for change
67
Multiple pathways to innovate and scale
Ecological diversity of innovations foster scalability
Leadership for strategic alignment and system level knowledge building as a necessary condition for scalability
Foster multilevel, system-wide connectivity and strategic partnership as architecture for learning
Learning from SCALE CCR: An ecological model of scalable innovation
Learning from SCALE CCR: Effective scaling strategies
Encourage learning that is experiential, generative and self-organizing
Provide architectures (i.e. structures and mechanisms) for learning across sites and levels
Propagate and consolidate learning to higher levels of the system hierarchy through changes to services and organization
Technology as an integrated infrastructure for learning at multiple levels
How far has Hong Kong advanced during the 21st century on the road towards transforming learning compared to its international peers?
How can HK learn better as a system in education innovation/reform endeavors?
Nancy Law [email protected]
Centre for Information Technology in Education University of Hong Kong
Thank you!
