Advertisement

School leadership and teachers’ pedagogical orientations in Hong Kong: A comparative perspective

  • Allan H. K. Yuen
  • M. W. Lee
  • Nancy Law
Article

Abstract

As a secondary analysis of SITES 2006, this paper aims to explore the school leadership factors that potentially affect teachers’ pedagogical orientations. The exploration is guided by four questions: (1) How do we describe school leadership factors? (2) What are the principals’ perceptions about pedagogy and ICT use? (3) What are the teachers’ perceptions about pedagogical orientations? and (4) How does the school leadership associate with teachers’ pedagogical orientations? Eight school leadership constructs were identified, which cover four areas: learning goals, priority for resource allocation, types of assessment, and priority of competencies for school leadership to acquire. The findings also indicate a gap between principals’ and teachers’ perceptions on pedagogy and ICT use in Hong Kong.

Keywords

School leadership ICT integration Pedagogical orientation Comparative perspective 

References

  1. Anderson, R. E., & Plomp, T. (2008). National contexts. In N. Law, W. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 37–66). Hong Kong: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, C. K. (1996). Schools, technology, and educational leadership: a framework for change. NASSP Bulletin, 80(577), 57–66. doi: 10.1177/019263659608057711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardinal, R. N., & Aitken, R. F. (2006). Anova for the behavioural sciences researcher. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Coffland, D. A., & Strickland, A. W. (2004). Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary geometry instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 347–365.Google Scholar
  5. EC. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Education Commission, Hong Kong SAR Government.Google Scholar
  6. EDB. (2008). Right technology at the right time for the right task. Education Bureau (EDB), Hong Kong SAR Government: Consultation Document. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  7. EMB. (1998). Information technology for lear in a new era: Five-year strategy 1998/99 to 2002/03. Hong Kong: Education and Manpower Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government.Google Scholar
  8. EMB. (2004). Empowering learning and teaching with information technology. Hong Kong: Education and Manpower Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government.Google Scholar
  9. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142. doi: 10.1108/09578230310464648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffin, M. A. (2001). Dispositions and work reactions: a multi-level approach. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1142–1151. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, leadership in education and e-leadership. Discourse. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(1), 113–124. doi: 10.1080/0159630042000178518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. IEA. (2008). SITES 2006 Questionnaire. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. http://www.sites2006.net/exponent/index.php?section=37. Accessed: 4 February 2009.
  14. Kearsley, G., & Lynch, B. (1992). Educational leadership in the age of technology: the new skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  15. Law, N., & Chow, A. (2008). Pedagogical orientations in mathematics and science and the use of ICT. In N. Law, W. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 121–179). Hong Kong: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Leskes, A., Grogan, W. R., Canham, R. P., & O’Brien, J. (2003). Designing institutional change. Liberal Education, 89(1), 32–41.Google Scholar
  17. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.Google Scholar
  18. McGrail, E. (2005). Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  19. Owston, R. D. (2003). School context, sustainability, and transferability of innovation. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: a global perspective (pp. 125–162). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  20. Pelgrum, W. (2008). School practices and conditions for pedagogy. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 67–120). Hong Kong: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Pelgrum, W. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1999). ICT and the emerging paradigm for life long learning. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  22. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6: hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood: SSI Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  23. Sumner, M., & Hostetler, D. (1999). Factors influencing the adoption of technology in teaching. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40(1), 81–87.Google Scholar
  24. Tse, H. H., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 195–211. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. UNESCO. (2002). Information and communication technologies in teacher education: a planning guide. Division of Higher Education: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, V., & McPake, J. (2000). Managing change in small Scottish primary schools. Is there a small school management style? Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 119–132. doi: 10.1177/0263211X000282001.Google Scholar
  27. Yuen, H. K. (2000). Teaching computer programming: a connectionist view of pedagogical change. Australian Journal of Education, 44(3), 240–253.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Yuen, H. K., & Ma, W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.Google Scholar
  29. Yuen, H. K., Law, N., & Wong, K. C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 158–170. doi: 10.1108/09578230310464666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology use in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. doi: 10.3102/00028312040004807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Information Technology in EducationThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations