Abstract:
The General Education Foundation course represents a new educational paradigm for HKIEd and for Hong Kong, as part of the change to a 3-3-4/5 structure. We need to evaluate the course formally during the crucial pilot stage so that as the Institute moves forward in General Education, we may use the results of the evaluation for improvement and further development of the Foundation course. Unlike most courses at the Institute, this course is designed as a large lecture/smaller tutorial model of interaction. We are specifically interested in how this model may interact with the new knowledge, skills and epistemological underpinnings of the General Education Foundation course. The focus of our study is on pedagogy and assessment. Participants will be lecturers (approx. 12), tutors (6) and students (150) in the General Education Foundation Course pilot in 2011-2012. Data collection consists of three stages: questionnaire, focus groups, and student assignments (marked and unmarked). Analysis will be conducted in both qualitative and quantitative manner. Reporting of results will focus on the subjective and inter-subjective dimensions of the understanding of different stakeholders (participating lecturers, tutors and students) in how the learning outcomes of students in the GE FC are achieved; and the (more) objective dimension of the actual performance of students as reflected in the course assignments. This project aims to produce findings that may enrich the research and knowledge about pedagogies and assessment for the combination of larger lectures and small tutorial classes in Hong Kong and the Region. We anticipate that results will inform key areas of concern to the Institute, notably: (1) Reflective learning and practice (by encouraging students in small-class tutorials to engage in reflective discussion and writing); and (2) Enhancing the relationship between teaching and learning (by positioning tutors between lecturers – who will provide the input to knowledge – and students – who will be challenged to think critically and creatively about the material presented to them). It is anticipated that the results will inspire the Institute, the General Education Committee and the General Education Office to introduce new educational paradigms in relation to teaching, learning, assessment and course structure.
Code:
T0102
Principal Project Supervisors:
Subjects:
Start Date:
20 Jul 2011
End Date:
19 Jul 2012
Status:
Completed
Result:
The evaluation results indicate there are significant more students from the BEd programme strongly agreeing/agreeing that they will be able to demonstrate appropriate levels of understanding and knowledge in a range of disciplines and subject areas by the end of the course, the lecture titles/topics and lecture content are well-matched, and the course as a whole made sense to them although the lectures covered different topics and areas. On the other hand, most of students (86.3%) suggest “more than 10 lectures” should be compulsory over two semesters. Moreover, most of students (82.9%) “agree/strongly agree” with the statement that “attendance at a minimum number of lectures should be compulsory, so that students have some choice about their attendance”. Significant more students from the BEd programme strongly agree/agree that attendance at lectures and tutorials should be compulsory.
Furthermore, the evaluation results show that there are significant more BEd students strongly agree/agree that the tutor did not say very much but encouraged them to speak and participate because BEd students have significant lower mean score (1.67) than the mean score (2.17) of BA/BSSc students. However, there are significant more students from the BEd programme strongly agree/agree that the tutor provided or suggested additional reading material, assisted us with using the library and other resources, For those students who found the tutorials to be interesting and/or enjoyable and/or worthwhile most of the time, they also strongly agree/agree that the tutor used a variety of strategies to get students involved and interacting in class (paired discussion, small groups, reading and writing activities, sitting in a circle, etc.), encouraged them to address and respond to one another directly in the classroom, asked a lot of questions, including questions that encouraged them to think hard, encouraged them to ask questions and attempted to answer most of them her/himself, encouraged them to ask questions and to find the answers/solutions themselves, encouraged them to consider different solutions and viewpoints, helped them to make sense of the lectures and power-points, helped them to make sense of the more difficult reading materials prescribed, assisted them in preparing or giving their class presentation, assisted them in preparing for the written assignments, helped them link the topics to contexts beyond the classroom and their own interests/experiences, enable them to learn more about the topics presented, helped them to grasp the key concepts and ideas in the syllabus, came to class well-prepared, showed good organization and control in the classroom, made them want to think and learn more about the topics being discussed.
In addition, those students who indicated the language used in the classroom was mainly English also strongly agree/agree that the tutor took students’ comments and questions seriously and encouraged them to value their own ideas and opinions. Also, there are significant mean differences between students with different language used in the classroom with regard to the tutor’s speaking that the tutor did nearly all of the talking, the tutor did not say very much but encouraged us to speak and participate (handled discussions well), and the tutor encouraged them to address and respond to one another directly in the classroom.
On the other hand, significantly more students, who feel their classroom functioned well as a thinking community, strongly agree/agree that the tutor not only talked quite a lot but also encouraged us to speak and participate (handled discussions well), used a variety of strategies to get students involved and interacting in class (paired discussion, small groups, reading and writing activities, sitting in a circle, etc.), and encouraged them to address and respond to one another directly in the classroom. However, only a few of them strongly agree/agree that the tutor did well in all aspects of questioning in the classroom except that the tutor asked a lot of questions, but mainly routine or test-type questions where the tutor already knows the answer and simply wants to determine if them know it.
Impact:
The pedagogy in learning-centered GEFC(Pilot) is based on engagement and the idea that learning is a social and cognitive act that is enhanced through discussion, reflection, practice, feedback, and authentic tutorial activities. The GEFC is moving toward increased use of active and collaborative learning over the last two semesters in 2011-12. In the beginning, it lacks benchmarking tools of evaluation which are available now. The evaluation results make it possible for the HKIED to take a snapshot for their students’ engagement and apply the findings to as norms. These findings provide actionable feedbacks, so the HKIED can pinpoint specific areas to address and respond through active course development and improvement. Tracking evaluation results over time also provided a historical record of the impact of the GEFC(Pilot) when it is fully implemented in 2012-13.
Financial Year:
2010-11
Type:
TDG