The future of learning and teaching in schools: a Hong Kong perspective

Professor John Chi-kin Lee, Mr Julian Yat-ming Leung & Mr Lawrence K.K. Ho
Center for University and School Partnership, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong

1. Global education reform trends

At the turn of the 21st century, vigorous education reform initiatives were witnessed in many countries, the policy convergence of which is to prepare students for the knowledge-based economy and society. As Professors Ball & Levin (1998) sharply observed and synthesized, the so-called ‘new orthodoxy’, or paradigm shift, is to replace the logic of Fordist mass-production with new ‘knowledge-based’ systems of flexible production in the tempo of globalized economy. The imperatives of globalization have re-oriented policy concerns of governments in such a way that they are seriously preoccupied with creating the conditions necessary to promote economic competitiveness in the new international economic order. Simultaneously, there are attempts to inject managerial-entrepreneurial spirit and business approaches spirit into the bureaucratic professional regimes of educational organization, to make the system more competitive and ‘marketized’ than in the past. As such, pupils and teachers alike have to meet performance standards that are closely monitored by internal self-evaluation and external evaluation mechanisms. Quality improvement strategies are emphasized and educational processes are translated into performance indicators and measurable outcomes towards which schools and teachers must strive.

In the Hong Kong context, the ‘2000 Education Reform Initiatives’ was launched and various reform measures were implemented under the spirit of ‘enabling our students to have all-round development as the attitude and ability for lifelong learning’ (EMB, 2006). Supplemented with appropriate fiscal support measures, the reforms introduced to the school places allocation system, the school curriculum and the assessment mechanism are aimed ‘to cater for the diverse learning needs of students, ensure their basic standards and encourage the pursuit of excellence’ (EMB, 2006). In May 2005, ‘The New Academic Structure for Senior Secondary and Higher Education - Action Plan for Investing in the Future’ set out the roadmap of implementing a new ‘3+3+4’ (3-year junior secondary, 3-year senior secondary and 4-year undergraduate) academic structure in 2009.

2. The ‘new’ ways of teaching and learning

To make learning more appropriate for the future world, a fundamental reappraisal of teaching and learning is being purposively promoted. ‘Learner-centeredness’ is highly regarded. Greater emphasis is placed on the inculcation of generic skills and employment-related qualities, rather than the acquisition of superficial knowledge through rote learning. Pupils are expected to become independent lifelong learners and higher order thinkers. The ‘constructivist’ approach of teaching-learning is advocated. Schools are equipped with information technology and are relatively well resourced to facilitate knowledge construction. Teachers are thought of as facilitators of learning or ‘pedagogic technicians’ (Ball, 1998). Overall, there is an expectation of a paradigm shift of learning and teaching from a dominant didactic and teacher-centered approach to a constructivist learning-centered scenario.

3. The time lag of paradigm shift in teaching and learning

With multi-level and multi-dimensional educational and curriculum reforms taken root at the system level, attention is now focused on the effectiveness of learning and teaching at the classroom level. However, the pace of paradigm shift of learning and teaching falls behind the expectations. In the last five years, the annual Quality Assurance Inspection Report repeatedly points out the following unsatisfactory aspects of classroom learning and teaching in Hong Kong schools:

• teachers tend to have low expectations of pupils
• teacher dominance and insufficient classroom interaction
• passive learning attitude and behavior of pupils
• lack of higher order questions that stretch pupils’ mind
• lack of varieties of teaching approach to address pupils’ diversities.

4. Core elements of effective learning and teaching

The Education and Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong Government is sponsoring a five-year project (2004-2009) to facilitate improvement of learning and teaching in schools. The project, known as Partnership of Improvement of Learning and Teaching (PILT), is currently undertaken by the Center for University and School Partnership of the Faculty of Education, at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. In the years 2004-2006, 79 primary and secondary schools have joined the project in key learning areas such as mathematics, science, and Personal, Social and Humanities Education (PSHE). In order to sustain the continual efforts of teachers to improve the quality of learning and teaching, we have surveyed the international effective schools research on classroom teaching and a multitude of parameters of effective learning and teaching drawn up by governments, to identify the key elements of effective learning and teaching. By synthesizing the dearth of literature, an input-process-output model that embraces five dyads of elements is put forth, namely:

A. Quality instructional design. The lesson sustains focus on a significant topic, with clear identification of the key concepts, skills and values to be acquired by pupils. Developmental appropriate learning opportunities are designed for pupils. Possible problems encountered by pupils are identified in advance and addressed.

B. Quality learning ethos. Pupils require a supportive classroom environment if they are to make progress and achievement in learning. In such an environment, there is an atmosphere of self-regulation, mutual respect and support between teacher and pupils, and among pupils.

C. Variety in instructional approaches. Teachers use a variety of strategies and resources, including technology, to engage pupils actively and help them succeed at high levels. Pupils routinely use a variety of resources for learning and engage in learning experiences beyond the textbook and the classroom.

D. Variation in instructional approaches. Deliberate attempts will be made to ensure that pupils from diverse backgrounds, experiences and abilities are engaged in meaningful and appropriate ways. Oral, visual and written means of communication are utilized to explain, interpret and express opinions.

E. High motivation of pupils. Teachers have to convey high expectations for pupils, assuring that all students can learn and make progress if they put in efforts to meet challenges. Stimulating and challenging learning experiences are organized to spark and hold pupils’ interest of learning. It is essential that pupils have to take a leading role as ‘learners’ on their own.

F. High degree of pupil engagement. Pupils have to be involved in challenging learning experiences to achieve the expected school-wide learning outcomes. There will be vigorous academic engagements of students in authentic learning tasks, showing enthusiasm for their work by raising questions, contributing to group activities and peer work. There is considerable interaction among pupils, and between teacher and pupils, about the key concepts of a substantive topic; the interactions are reciprocal, and promote shared understanding.
  
G. Deep enquiry. Knowledge is presented, not as a fixed body of information from the teacher, but rather as being constructed under the facilitation the teacher. Pupils need to be given enough sufficient opportunities to construct knowledge and explore answers. They have to experience learning opportunities that integrate higher order thinking skills and knowledge. Their minds have to be stretched.

H. Deep meaning. The lesson needs to be meaningful in the sense that it is tightly connected with significant concepts or central ideas in the discipline or school subject. Superficiality of instructional strategies and trivialized knowledge have to be avoided.

I. Powerful outcomes. Having gone through the learning process, the majority of pupils should have experienced some successes and progress. They are able to tell and demonstrate their gains in assessment of learning activities quantitatively, as in paper-pencil tests, or qualitatively, as in self-reflection and learning portfolio.

J. Powerful acquisition. Having gone through the learning process, pupils should be able to display deep understanding of what they have learned by grasping the complex relationships between the central concepts of a topic. They understand the topic in a relatively systematic, integrated and holistic way. They demonstrate the ability to transfer knowledge in a related topic or setting, solve problems and make further inquiries.

5. Key activities of PILT project and common challenges

The PILT is a school reform project providing on-site consultation to primary and secondary schools. It covers different KLAs (Key Learning Area) such as PSHE (Personal, Social and Humanities Education), sciences and mathematics. The key objective of the project is to help school principals and teachers develop the capacity to conduct school-based inquiries for continuous improvement. A variety of initiatives on the advancement of teaching and learning are introduced by the PILT experts to cater the specific needs of schools. Means of professional support include workshops, seminars and collegial sessions on curriculum planning and review, and they are all designed to strengthen teachers’ collaboration in curriculum design and increase their pedagogical competence.

Despite the promising initial achievements reported from most project schools, several challenges could still be identified throughout the joint efforts between school leaders and university experts. The challenges frequently confronted by curriculum leaders include:

• ambiguous goals and radical approach: no concrete, manifested and operative guidelines are worked out to facilitate the curriculum transformation
• a low degree of teachers’ readiness for the pedagogical changes: inadequate analysis are conducted to address the learning difference among pupils
• insufficient teachers’ collaboration: as a result of poor teachers’ empowerment, contradictory expectations among colleagues and ‘balkanized’ organizational culture within school
• insufficient attempts were taken by school authorities to consolidate the initial achievements and perpetuate to continuous progress.

6. The importance of collaborative reflection in improving learning and teaching

Our initial experiences of partnership development with teachers tell that they need to become reflective in order to make improvement of learning and teaching. While the 10 core elements provide research-based and effective quick references for making improvement, it is essential that teachers adopt them as tools of reflection, rather than blueprint formula of change. Therefore, it is crucial to introduce action research and collaborative lesson preparation, peer lesson observation and post-observation opportunities in the process of making improvement and engaging teachers in self-reflection. Also, it should be made clear that teachers’ willingness to make paradigm shift in learning and teaching arise from their readiness to address problems, identify solutions, and trial and evaluate in an every improving manner. Such willingness has to be encouraged and facilitated by the change agent as helpful university partners and critical friends.

References

Ball, SJ. ‘Global trends in educational reform and the struggle for the soul of the teacher’. Wei Lun Public Lecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 27 November 1998. Hong Kong.
Levin, B. ‘An epidemic of education policy: what can we learn for each other?’ In Comparative education, 1998. 34(2), 131-142.
Education and Manpower Bureau. Education reform: key points. 2006. See: www.info.gov.hk.
Lee, JCK & Leung, JYM. ‘Exploring the core elements of improving classroom learning and teaching’.  Reform in School Education Paper No. 32. 2006. Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.