Hong Kong Institute of Education



Hong Kong Institute of Education

Second Internal TLQPR

DRAFT REPORT

School of Creative Arts, Sciences and Technology

Department of Mathematics

The Internal TLQPR Process

TLQPR Panel members

Dr Len Cairns (Chairman)

Mrs Winnie Jenkins (HKUST)

Prof Philllip Moore

Mr Paul Lau

Secretary Ms Catherine Leung W K

Senior Staff

Dr. Louisa Lam (HoD)

Mr. Thomas Yeung (DHoD)

Mr. Litwin Cheng (SL)

Mr. Fung Chi Yeung (SL)

Other Staff

Mr. Leung Chi Keung, Eddie (L)

Mr. Luk Hok Wing (L)

Dr. Man Yiu Kwong (L)

Mr. Ng Yui Kin (L)

Mr. Sze Chong Lap (L)

Mr. Wong Tak Wah (L)

Mrs. Yeung Leung Man Ling, Shirley (L)

Students Interviewed

|Miss Wong Tik Kei (2SC2) |

|Miss Lam Hau Man (2SE2) |

|Miss Suen Man Ting (2PC1) |

|Miss Lai Shuk Yi (3PC2) |

|Miss Cheung Ka Pui (Add-on BEd-2) |

|Miss Chan Hau Hing (Add-on BEd-2) |

|Miss Ng Wai Chi (BEd(P)-3) |

|Miss Kam Hei Lin (BEd(P)-3) |

|Miss Chan Wa Chun (F/T PGDE(P)) |

|Miss Yuen Sui Wa (F/T PGDE(P)) |

The Department Mathematics visit was conducted on Tuesday 5th June, 2001 at the Hong Kong Institute of Education Tai Po campus.

The panel met with Senior Staff, a number of other academic staff and with a group of students from the range of programmes in which the Department offers modules.

Overview

The Mathematics Department of the School of Creative Arts, Sciences and Technology provided the panel with a draft Education Quality Work Profile together with the Department’s Mission Statement, structure, and a process flow chart of the Curriculum Design process.

The panel and Departmental staff and students engaged in detailed discussion and examination of the five Domains, with particular attention to Domain 3: Design of Student Assessment and Use of Assessment Results. The panel utilized a range of questions across each Domain which were devised to focus on key aspects of both Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement measures, processes and activities developed and applied by the Department.

Education Quality Work in the Mathematics Department

The Department of Mathematics, though not a large one in terms of numbers of staff, has, in its three years of development under the current School structure, managed to establish a useful and functional approach to curriculum design and to operate with a clear vision of its contribution and aims for students.

The panel discussed each of the five domains of the TLQPR with staff and students.

The Department of Mathematics was perceived very positively by the students interviewed and they also made it clear that they chose to study Mathematics at the HKIEd because it was the “best place for educating professional Math teachers in Hong Kong”. This clear market differentiation was seen by the panel as a strength. Indeed, this group of students were quite vocal about what the perceived as the quality aspects of the Department and the HKIEd as a whole.

Specific Domain Observations

Domain 1: Design of Curriculum

Like the rest of the School of Creative Arts, Sciences and Technology, the Department of Mathematics has been diligently working in the past three years of its new life, to establish new Modules and to assist in the development and Curriculum Design of new degree programmes. This has meant that considerable effort and expertise has been devoted to this domain and that systems, processes and quality assurance mechanisms involving the local profession, overseas experts and detailed examination of trends and research in the field of Mathematics education has been a highlight of the Department’s efforts.

In preparing the new programme module outlines and to ensure its quality standard, the module writers appointed by the Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) take into consideration the aims of current education reforms in Hong Kong, and consult international literature, for example, the Standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. These aspects are argued by the staff as good practice in Curriculum Design to assure up-to-date information and local and international good practice.

Before developing any new programme modules or making any changes to existing modules by the CDC, comments or suggestions from external consultants, school principals and teachers, staff, students and graduates are seriously considered, discussed and selectively incorporated to remedy any perceived inadequacies of the proposed curriculum design.

The Department maintains a Web page, which both staff and students mentioned, the latter within the context of gaining an overview of the relative coherence of their major and their course Modules. This web page has details of Modules, staff and the Department.

The Department has a clear understanding of the Curriculum Design process and staff at all levels are acutely aware of the importance of quality measures and approaches to ensure that their Curriculum Design is both up to date and well developed for the benefit of students and Mathematics teaching in Hong Kong.

The fact that staff have been through a succession of internal and external (HKCAA) Validation exercises over the past few years has meant that they are well informed and well aware of the processes involved.

Domain 2: Design of Teaching and Learning Processes

The Department has made use of such programmes as the Lecturer Attachment Scheme and close contacts with schools and the mathematics teaching professionals in Hong Kong and elsewhere in efforts to keep Teaching and Learning abreast of changes and developments world-wide. In addition, the Department has established a Teaching Quality and Assessment Committee, which has, as its key function, to discuss and report on matters of Teaching and Assessment quality assurance and improvement.

Staff present their Module outlines and assessments requirements to students at the beginning of each semester and any part-time sessional staff are fully briefed on Modules and assessment details for areas within any Modules for which they are to be responsible.

Modules are regularly monitored by way of staff discussion, student feedback and collegiate sharing. Institute policy on formal Module evaluation is followed.

In all, ten students were interviewed by the visiting panel, and there was evidence of very strong bonding with the Mathematics Department and staff from this group. In addition, the levels of inspiration (eg. “I have come to love Maths through my work in the HKIEd”) was an unsolicited strength which emerged in the discussions. Students also commented on the value of staff individual web pages and the use of IT within the Modules offered by the Department, they did however, suggest that more time be given to the use by them of IT in Mathematics teaching techniques and methods.

Since Teaching Practice (TP) is such a central feature of Teacher Education, this aspect was focussed on with staff and students during the panel discussions as well.

While the staff view was that there were adequate pre and post (TP) briefings of students and especially with regard to assessment criteria, the students felt that some aspects needed additional attention (see comments below in Domain 3).

Domain 3: Design of Student Assessment and Use of Assessment Results

Assessment methods and approaches are discussed and developed in design at the stage of Curriculum Design, but staff regularly monitor their assessment approaches through reports of External examiners, staff sharing and student evaluation and feedback.

The feedback from External examiners on assessment methods or skills are discussed and shared among staff in the departmental meetings. These professional comments are accepted selectively by considering the appropriateness and applicability of the comments against the existing assessment system. Responses to the suggestions/ comments are made in written form to explain the rationale behind departmental actions.

In order to ensure the quality assurance on the assessment, staff teaching the same subject modules will meet regularly and sometimes informally to share and review their experiences on assessment methods, module design and teaching methods for further improvement and implementation in next academic year. In addition, the Head of Department regularly, as policy, monitors and moderates where necessary, Module assessments.

In attempting to ensure the fairness of the assessment policies adopted by the Department, a Double Marking System is enforced so as to minimize the subjectivity concern on assessing students’ performances. Furthermore, students can express their views or comments through other channels, such as the Staff-student consultative meetings, and informal gatherings with their tutors. Both staff and students were positive in their reporting on the close interaction of staff with students in this Department. In fact this aspects featured as a major strength.

There was discussion with all three groups (Senior Staff, Staff and Students) about the fact that Mathematics has the highest failure rate in the School of Creative Arts, Sciences and Technology for some of its Modules. The issues surrounding both the difficulty of the content for some students and the perceived precision of assessment, as well as the differences between examination and project assignment rates of success, were all canvassed and the Department was urged to keep these aspects under consideration.

The lack of any apparent detailed analyses and more public availability of pass rates, completion times, and other trends and features of assessment, which was apparent in all Departments, was briefly discussed. This aspect is one which might need consideration, with due deference to local history, cultural preferences and academic freedom issues, as one worthy of further debate and development.

The matter of the timing of follow-up to any student evaluation responses to Modules and Programmes was discussed. This matter arose as students felt that while they can comment this year, little benefit can accrue to them, as changes suggested would most likely only be initiated in the following year. They were unsure as to whether any of their previous suggestions for improvement had led to actual changes. This raises issues about communication of changes and response to feedback.

The Mathematics Department students (mostly Math majors) did raise some concerns about consistency of assessment and feedback advice during Teaching Practice. In addition, they raised the matter that in some cases, their teaching practice of Maths had been supervised by Lecturers who were not Maths staff and the advice given about methodology appeared to contradict that offered by Maths Lecturers in class. Students were somewhat resigned to the fact that it seemed to them there was little they could do about such matters.

Whilst staff were confident that students had access (via Student Handbooks) to appeals and complain processes and thus should know these, students were less clear, particularly about the process of whether they could consult and view their examination papers.

Domain 4: Implementation Quality

At the end of each academic year, module evaluation questionnaire are distributed to the students for their comments and opinions on both the module design and the teaching quality of tutors concerned. The evaluation results are then studied and discussed by the staff for further improvement. Informal sharing and discussion between staff and students throughout the year on the module implementation matters can also help to identify aspects that need improvement.

Whilst the Department of Mathematics had the least number of separate Committees in the School, the relationship between Committees in the way they functioned was not clear to the panel. For example, it was not clear exactly how the Teaching Quality and Assurance Committee related (if at all) to the Curriculum Design Committee or the Budget Committee.

The Panel recommends that the Department attempt to design and discuss a set of flow charts which illustrate the processes of Curriculum Design and Committee Quality Assurance and Improvement.

Domain 5: Commitment of Resources to EQW

In attempting to ensure the teaching quality of teaching staff, Performance and Planning Review (PPR) is conducted to review the teaching quality and performance of individual staff.

It is apparent that, within limited budget areas, the Department of Mathematics has made serious attempt to address the TLQPR agenda by way of staff time, a special Committee and an examination of its processes and approaches through an EQW profile.

Conclusion

The Department of Mathematics has developed a useful EQW profile and is conscious, across senior staff, other staff and students of the necessity and importance of quality assurance and improvement.

It was particularly noticeable that staff and students in this Department have a genuine and close rapport, which also extends to many students being inspired to teach and enjoy Mathematics. This is a most enviable outcome for such a Department, given that many students do not usually see Maths as an area for such passion and dedication.

Whilst there are a number of areas still in need of additional consideration and tightening of processes and clarity of communication about those processes across the Departmental staff and students, overall the Maths group is in a good stage of early readiness for the quality review.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download