Abstract:

With the biggest curriculum reform in the history of Hong Kong education underway (Chan and Luk, 2013), every university in Hong Kong is taking the opportunity to renew all minor and major elements from its higher education infrastructure to policy to curriculum in order to better equip the students in this globalisation age (Knight, 2006). The growing popularity of eLearning is naturally one of the agendas on the reform list. This new form of instructional delivery poses a number of questions and challenges for academics and policy makers.
In Zemsky and Massy (2004)’s report entitled ‘Thwarted innovation. What happened to eLearning and why’, presented a picture of how eLearning is often not as successful as it claimed to be, with many areas needed to be appropriately address such as quality assurance on the e-curriculum development, funding models and learning support in technology (Mansvelt et al, 2009). The teaching and learning process is often technologically driven as opposed to pedagogically led (Lehtonen et al, 2007; Rossiter D and Crock, 2006). If e-Learning is to have widespread adoption and higher education institutions are to accrue the benefits of eLearning technologies, the cultural characteristics of the university including the diversity of academic motivation, orientation among students, diversity of learning contexts, teachers’ beliefs and approaches in teaching and learning (Qureshi and Vogel, 2000; McNaught and Vogel, 2006) need to all play an influenced role.
In this presentation showcase, we report findings exploring how Hong Kong academics are designing e-learning courses and issues that Hong Kong academics are facing as they try to create an appropriate learning environment for the learners. We will also discuss the implications from the technological and pedagogical support and how they align with the university’s e-learning policy.

References:
Chan, C.K.Y., and L.Y.Y. Luk. 2013. Faculty perspectives on the "334" curriculum reform in Hong Kong: Pros and cons. International Education Studies 6(4): 56-66.
Knight, J. (2006). Higher Education Crossing Borders – A guide to the implications of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for cross-border education. A Report prepared for the Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO.
Lehtonen, M., Page, T., Thorsteinsoon, G., and Hepburn, M (2007). An application of a virtual learning environment in support of teaching and learning for design and technology education. in Int. J. Learning Technology, Vol3. No.2 pp 133 – 148.
Mansvelt, J., Suddaby. G., O’Hara, D., and Gilbert. A. (2009). Professional Development: assuring quality in e-learning policy and practice. Quality assurance in Education, Vol.17, No.3, pp 233 – 249.
McNaught, C., and Vogel, D. (2006) The fit between e-learning policy and institutional culture, in Int. J. Learning Technology, Vol2. No.4 pp 370 – 385.
Qureshi, S. and Vogel, D. (2000) Adaptive processes for achieving socio-technical fit in CSCW groups, in E. Coakes, R. Lloyd-Jones and D. Willis (Eds.) The New Sociotech Graffiti on the Long Wall, London: Springer Verlag.
Rossiter, D and Crock, M (2006) Embedding e-Learning: a new perspective on change and innovation in Int. J. Learning Technology, Vol2. No.4 pp 279 – 293.
Zemsky, R. and Massy, W.F. (2004) Thwarted Innovation. What Happened to eLearning and Why, The Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania, http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/WeatherStation.html.

Keywords:

e-learning, curriculum reform, assessment, transferable skills.