To be honest, I want to say that we have no
idea that why we choose these three cases at the beginning of the course. When
we begin our analysis, we found it is difficult for us to connect each case.
But this is the most important part that we should do.
As our group members talked right now the
LV001 and LV002 cases come from the same country, Latvia, but different
schools. On the School level, it seems like all the situations are similar. We
marked the difference into red words. Here I want to say, LV001 innovation
started in 1999 and LV002 started in 2000. And LV1 only last two or three years
they start to pay attention to ICT as a tool for innovations in education, but
LV2 has four or five years attention. Under the same national policies, the
school of LV2 has a little longer history on the ICT. And school of LV2 seems
more motivate on the improvement of ICT, because they hosted the conference of
ICT teachers in Latvia.
On the class level, there is a totally
different between them. In LV1, students not satisfied with such kind of ICT
use, because it is not interesting of searching information. While, in LV2, students
are satisfied, and they looked motivated and tried to fulfill the task. Here,
we think that how to integrate the ICT into the different curriculum and make
the course more interesting is a big question. The course teacher and
coordinator should be the creator and facilitator. Because it relates to the
innovations’ sustainability and scalability.
Compared with school of LV002, the computer
using after regular school day should pay for the incoming traffic from abroad
in the school of LV001. Maybe without the extra payment, the ICT use in School
of LV001 will more common.
In terms of the case of CN009, as we
mentioned, it was a school in Hong Kong, and with the first plan about the ICT
use, the innovative school become more creativity. Compare with the Cases from
Latvia, the school in Hong Kong more liberal and democratic and it has a long
history of innovations. As to the IT infrastructure, 70 computers allocated to
different Rooms and even corridor and every teacher have a notebook for their
preparation of the lessons. For the support, the student supporting team is
more outstanding than the LV1&2. And the support from the IT team and Conveyor
is more professional. Based on the history and the innovation, on the classroom
level, teachers’ role and students’ role are totally different with LV1&2
which my team member talked right now. And ICT use in this school was very
common. And there is a wider scope of connections with people in other school
or other organizations.
However, why these two regions have the gap
in ICT use in education? They were all starting the plan in the late 1990s,
why? In our group, we think first, the history of the school, although they used the traditional
education before, but Hong Kong school more innovative under the traditional
education background. And second, the economic base determines the superstructure. Hong Kong school
got more resources from the government aids. Third, students’ participation in ICT used. Hong Kong
school gave the student more opportunities to make contribution to the ICT
environment but in Latvia we saw a little. And last, teachers’ creativity, in Hong Kong school, it has
a long history of the innovation, so teachers are in the environment of
creativity, but in Latvia, not only the teacher are not creative before, and
also they only get the basic skill of ICT after they using ICT in education.
This is our group’s presentation, if you
have question, please. And thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment