See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340860764

Title Digital divide in secondary schools: a Hong Kong study Digital Divide in
Secondary Schools: A Hong Kong Study (with amendments)

Article · December 2014

CITATION READS

1 370

3 authors, including:

Shun Kai Lam

The University of Hong Kong
55 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Forecast & Predict the Influenza View project

A control of Virus through Lorenz Attractor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shun Kai Lam on 23 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Title Digital divide in secondary schools : a Hong Kong study

Author(s) Lam, Kai-shun; 林啟信

Citation

Issued Date 2014

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/209544

Rights Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License

Digital Divide in Secondary Schools:
A Hong Kong Study

by

Lam Kai Shun

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree

of Master of Science in Information Technology Education at The
University of Hong Kong.
15 December 2014

I
II
 Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who made this

thesis possible.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Allan H.K. Yuen, the Director

of the Centre of Information Technology Education in the Faculty of Education. His

support and advice was greatly appreciated. I also want to show my appreciation to

his research team, including Wilfred Lau, Albert Chan, and Maggie Kwok, as well as

my classmates for their work arranging and participating in interviews.

Secondly, I would also like to thank the school principals, teachers,

students, and the parents for their support, enthusiasm, and encouragement

during the completion of this study.

Thirdly, I am very grateful to Mr. K.T. Mok and Ms Shih for taking the time

to proofread and provide feedback on my thesis. Thank you very much.

Lastly, but by no means least, I would like to thank God for helping me

solve the many problems I faced during the writing of this thesis.

III
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................III
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................I
Abstract..........................................................................................................................1
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................1
1.1 Popular Participatory Culture and Digital Divide ...................................1
1.2 The Causes of Participatory Divide .........................................................3
1.3 The Change in Future Teaching Pedagogy ..............................................4
1.4 Definition of Related Terms ....................................................................5
1.5 Significance of the Study .........................................................................7
1.6 Organization of the Thesis .......................................................................8
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................9
2.1 Digital Literacy ........................................................................................9
2.2 Conceptual Framework for Digital Literacy .........................................10
2.3 The Educational Theory Behind Participatory Culture - Social
Constructivism ............................................................................................12
2.3.1 Active Learning .......................................................................13
2.3.2 Discovery Learning .................................................................13
2.3.3 Peer Learning ...........................................................................15
2.3.4 Situated Learning .....................................................................15
2.4 Framework of the Study ........................................................................16
2.4.1 Digital Devices and Internet Access ........................................17
2.4.2 Technology Uses in the Classroom .........................................17
2.4.3 Empowerment of Students and the Community ......................19
Chapter Three: Methodology ..............................................................................21
3.1 Overview ...............................................................................................21
3.2 Designation of the Research ..................................................................22

I
 3.2.1 Qualitative Case Study Research 22
3.2.2 Research Process 23
3.3 Implementation Process 24
3.3.1 Analysis of Related Documents 24
3.3.2 Interviews 24
3.3.3 Observations 25
3.4 Data Analysis and Conclusions 25
Chapter Four: Research Findings 27
4.1 A Brief Review of the Sampled Schools and Participants ...................27
4.1.1 School A’s General ICT Situation 27
4.1.2 School B’s General ICT Situation .............................................28
4.2 Inductive Categories and Details of the Findings ................................29
4.2.1. Technology Gaps (Creating Artefacts to Present Ideas) ...........31
4.2.1.1 Computer Software Skills 31
4.2.1.2 Hardware Access 32
4.2.1.3 Information Literacy ........................................................33
4.2.1.4 Difficulties in Daily Usage of ICT 34
4.2.2. Usage Gaps (Between Academic and Leisure).........................34
4.2.2.1 Leisure 34
4.2.2.2 Controversies of Using Digital / Media Tools35
4.2.2.3 Teachers' Pedagogy 36
4.2.2.4 Contributions of Using Digital / Media Tools 37
4.2.3. Reasons for the Technology and Usage Gaps (Creating
Multimodal Artefacts) 38
4.2.3.1 Resources 39
4.2.3.2 Academic 40
4.2.3.3 Other Factors 41
4.3 Summary of the Findings 41
Chapter Five: Results and Discussion .................................................................42
5.1 Inductive Categories for Open and Axial Coding of Interview Results
43
5.2 Discussion on the Relations Between the Findings and the Research
Questions ...................................................................................................47

II
 5.3 A Framework Showing Reasons for the Digital Divide in Hong Kong
Secondary Schools ..............................................................................................52
Chapter Six: Conclusion and Implications ...............................................................55
6.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................55
6.2 Policy Implications .......................................................................................56
6.3 Study Contributions ......................................................................................58
6.4 Limitations to the Research .........................................................................59
6.5 Future Research ............................................................................................60
References: ....................................................................................................................61
Appendix 1: Axial Coding Tables ..............................................................................71
Table 6: Category – Technical Gaps in Using Digital Media Amongst
Students ................................................................................................................71
Table 7: Category for Usage Gaps ....................................................................72
Table 8: Category: Causes of the Technical and Usage Gaps .......................73
Appendix 2: Networked Diagram From Code-Based Analysis.............................74
Appendix 3: A Summarized Matrix Display of Qualitative Coding From
the Students’ and Teachers’ Interviews .....................................................................75
Appendix 4: A Sample of a Student’s Interview ......................................................78
Appendix 5: A Sample of a Teacher’s Focus Group Interview .............................88
Appendix 6: A Sample of a Principal’s Interview ...................................................95

III
 Abstract

There is always a gap between student learning and classroom teaching in

Hong Kong education. The use of information and communication technology has

made the situation even worse. It is common practice for students to work together

through digital media like Instagram, WhatsApp, online chat rooms, and Facebook by

using elements such as video, music, text, and artistic photography to reflect and

discuss ideas for project assignments. During the process, students can further

investigate what they have learnt in lessons and construct new knowledge. However,

Hong Kong schools still concentrate on text-based presentation software for teaching.

Schools have reacted slowly to the appearance of this new popular participatory

culture.

It will therefore be interesting to study schools’ ICT infrastructures, the

digital literacy in classrooms, as well as students’ individual usage behaviour with

digital media. From the study, we will be able to understand the reasons behind the

choice of multimodal elements in students’ learning as well as posting them online.

We can then determine the relationship between the participatory culture in creating

multimodal artefacts and the digital divide in education amongst students; as

well as finding out which factors lead to the gap and enhance participatory culture in

academic purposes for students. Thus, we can improve the students’ learning outcome

gap when using digital media in teaching and studying.

 This thesis will employ a qualitative research method in its case study

approach. It will consist of 6 students’ interviews as well as teachers' focus group

interviews of three teachers from two schools. It is hoped that there are different

forms of technology and usage gap amongst the students in using digital tools.

Certainly, there are several ways to overcome the barriers.

 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Popular Participatory Culture and Digital Divide
In the 21st Century or the so-called digital age, the online experience for

students has become popular culture. In addition, students have also encountered

participatory culture through text and people around the world with different values.

In fact, school boys and girls have taken advantage of the opportunities given to them

by new media to join in with the interpretation and composition of popular culture. A

young teen can take a seat at a computer, or use a mobile phone or tablet to watch a

music video or a remix of a movie scene on YouTube, and at the same time can read

comments from other audience members that may help them understand the dialogue

and what is going on in the video (Williams & Zenger, 2007).

In addition to acting as the viewer and adding comments, the student or the

young teen can also create and post his or her own multimodal elements such as

video, music, text, and artistic photography online. Along with the global

development of information technology, youths are developing multi-literacy in social

media (Gee, 2010; Jewitt, 2008) through use of the Internet. This is achieved by

means of sharing, and providing peer feedback on the students’ created multimodal

artefacts within the social networking environment such as on freeware like Blogger,

Xanga, and Facebook. Knowledge is constructed (Bereiter, 2002; Goldman, 2007;

Jewitt, 2008), and multi-literacy is then developed. A usage gap has been created

between what is taught in school literacy and in multi-literacy. Teachers used to teach

subject knowledge to students in the classroom and assessment was done mainly on

paper. When using new media online like blogs, Facebook,YouTube, and twitter,
students can actively take part in multimodal communication on daily issues including

reflecting on what they have been taught in schools.

At the same time, says Poore (2013), students like to use digital and social

media tools mainly for entertainment. They can own all the latest electronic devices

and gizmos that are already on the market, but still get left behind under the parameter

of the “digital capital” they produce. For example, one student may be using

Whatsapp and his connection to the Internet on his smart phone to propagate a

classmate’s gossip, whilst another may be using it in the action group discussion

about biodiversity and to arrange a conference with a Member of the Legislative

Council about the effects of encroaching urban areas on local wildlife habitats .

Digital technology (both ICT hardware, and social collaborative media services and

tools) has become part of students’ everyday life but it can be used in ways that will

variously affect the students’ life. In other words, it is a useful way for us to have a

participatory ability in meaningful social and societal relations rather than just for

accessing hardware.

Moreover, through the creation of multi-literacy and then by sharing them

using new media online, students can present, share, and exchange ideas and

problems faced in subjects whilst doing their homework after school. It is an

interesting topic to study the rate of participation with such multi-literacy creation and

sharing through new media online. Therefore, this study aims to investigate Hong

Kong students’ behaviour in such matters. Some scholars have begun to pay particular

attention to differential rates of participation with digital media (Jenkins, 2006). There

are several forms of participatory culture including fan fiction and digital mash-ups as

well as collaborative problem-solving, group affiliation, and media circulation

(Hargittai & Walejko, 2008). The argument is that practices of this sort will

increasingly enhance our society through augmenting people’s skills necessary for

functioning well in the contemporary work-place and for diversifying creative and

cultural production (Hargittai & Walejko, 2008). This is what Jenkins et al. labelled

the “participation gap” or “participatory divide”.

1.2 The Causes of Participatory Divide

According to Yu in 2012, students were found to have used ICT related

technologies very frequently but seldom for educational purposes outside schools. In

fact, other research (Yu, 2012) shows that they mainly used ICT at home for web

based social networking such as Facebook or Twitter. The percentage was about

71.2% which means that they always or frequently perform such kinds of activities.

About 55.5% participated in downloading songs, movies, photos, and pictures from

the Internet and through online chatting (55%). However, only 4.12% of the students

used ICT to hold discussions with their teachers. Outside school, about half (52% and

57.1%) of the students always or frequently used ICT in their own bedrooms and

living rooms respectively. ICT use in cyber cafés and youth centres only contributed

4.47% and 3.63% respectively. During school hours, they were more likely to use ICT

for online assignments (19.9%), peer discussions (20.1%), and presentations (15.5%).

Only 2.3% of the students had discussions with their teachers using ICT.

The above statistics tell us that there was no first level of digital divide in Hong

Kong from the perspective of computer access in hardware and the Internet regardless of

being inside or outside of school. However, a participatory divide or gap may appear in

Hong Kong education. This is related to factors such as gender, race, and socioeconomic
background. In the US, digital content producing, and sharing online and offline is

affected by a student’s socioeconomic status as referenced in terms of their parent’s level

of schooling. A study was conducted in February and March 2007 at the University of

Illinois, Chicago (Hargittai & Walejko, 2008) in order to study the content creation and

sharing practices of 1060 first-year college students (where those students were close to

high school study). The course was called the “First-Year Writing Program”. The

study used a paper-and-pencil survey in order to avoid bias from people who did not

normally show online behaviour and would thus be less likely to participate.

They found that over a quarter of students had parents whose highest level

of education was high school, and an additional 20 percent of them did not have a

college degree. Overall, students who had at least one parent with a graduate degree

were considerably more likely to create music (43.1%) and video (28.2%) when

compared with parents with no more than a high school education (music – 35.9%

and video – 12.8%). These statistics suggest that creative activity is related to a

person’s socioeconomic status. Students who have at least one parent with a

graduate degree are significantly more likely to create content, either online or

offline, than others (Hargittai & Walejko, 2008). So what would the situation be

amongst Hong Kong students?

1.3 The Change in Future Teaching Pedagogy

The participatory gap may be overcome by a “new media literacy”,

highlighting the importance of focusing on enhancing people’s pursuits abilities

beyond providing technological access. Hence, the focus of digital divide discourse

has been shifted from questions of technological access to those of opportunities for
participation and the development of cultural competencies and social skills needed

for full involvement (Jenkins, 2009).

Subject to the messages we create and receive, the core factors of new

media literacy are:

1. Critical thinking and

2. Active inquiry.

The purpose of it is to establish reflective, informed, and engaged participants

who are significant to a democratic society. They also use their own beliefs, skills,

and experiences to construct meanings from media messages.

According to Hobbs and Jensen (2009), Science.net is an online game

developed by Professor David Williamson Shaffer of the epistemic games project at

the University of Wisconsin at Madison. The role of the players is to be science

reporters (Hobbs, 2009). They explore, establish, and create stories for an online

science news magazine in cooperation with journals. Each player has to report on

technological and scientific

advances and in addition influence their community. In such a case, young

students become critical consumers of the scientific information they encounter

(Magnifico, 2007). The game acts as an introductory space, and science educators

can investigate media literacy in their science classrooms. Experiential learning

across disciplines and areas of interest can be capitalized upon.

Besides this, we can use facilitator-generated online social networking and

mobile media content for drama education (Carroll, 2008). These students try to

explore and perform dramatic texts by intermingling the conventions inherent within

both theatre and media to achieve story goals. Students investigate a variety of social

and cultural issues important to the participants especially in conversations about

identity and power in spaces affected by digital technology. Thus, arts educators play

a large role in helping students deal with the challenges of the digital world, and

education in digital literacy should be a central component of contemporary arts

curricula (Snyder & Bulfin, 2007).

1.4 Definition of Related Terms

Participatory culture is opposite to a consuming culture, that is to say, a culture

where a person in public does not just act as only a consumer, but also contributes or

produces content and is usually called a 'prosumer'. The word is most likely related to

the production or creation of some form of digital media. Recently, advances in

technology such as tablets, mobile phones, and the Internet allow a person to create

and publish such media, usually through the Internet. This new culture is related to
the Internet that has been known as Web 2.0. In participatory culture "young people

creatively respond to a plethora of electronic signals and cultural commodities in

ways that surprise their makers, finding meanings and identities never meant to be

there and defying simple nostrums that bewail the manipulation or passivity of

“consumers.”

The word digital divide tries to describe a gap between people who have

access to ICT and the skills required to use such technology, and those who do not

have access or the necessary skills within a society, community, or a geographic area.

It describes an economic and social inequality between groups of people.

The participatory gap (divide) connects the subject of the digital divide with

the concerns about how to provide access to technology and skills for all school

learners. The movement in breaking down the digital divide includes efforts to

provide libraries, classrooms, and other public places with computers. These efforts

were successful, but as Jenkins et al. (2009) argue, more attention is paid to the

quality of access to available technologies. They explain:

“What a person can accomplish with an outdated machine in a public library

with mandatory filtering software and no opportunity for storage or transmission

pales in comparison to what [a] person can accomplish with a home computer with

unfettered Internet access, high band-width, and continuous connectivity. (Current

legislation to block access to social networking software in schools and public

libraries will further widen the participation gap.) The school system’s inability to

close this participation gap has negative consequences for everyone involved. On the

one hand, those youths who are most advanced in media literacy are often stripped of
their technologies and robbed of their best techniques for learning in an effort to

ensure a uniform experience for all in the classroom. On the contrary, many youths

who have had no exposure to these new kinds of participatory cultures outside of

school find themselves struggling to keep up with their peers.” (Jenkins et al., 2009,

p.15)

Multi-literacy means the way that multimedia and technology is changing

how we try to communicate. In the present day, we cannot only use text as the main

or only way for communication. Sounds and images are now being included as well

as being incorporated into movies and billboards, and appear on many sites on the

Internet and on television. All these present forms of communication that require a

person to have the ability to understand the multimedia world.

Grant (2007) refers to digital capital by saying, “Students who do not have

the economic, cultural, and social capital to achieve meaningful and effective

engagement with ICTs out of school may find themselves at a disadvantage as a

new literacy paradigm becomes increasingly important for participation in social

routines”.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study makes important contributions to both the academic

community and professional practitioners such as teachers, principals, and those who are

interested in studying youth participatory behaviour online. There are critics who doubt

whether improved or more ICT can enhance education. Indeed, to create a refreshingly

positive and open vision of children’s thoughtfulness, creativity, and desire to learn
anywhere and anytime (Livingstone, 2012), Jenkins (2006, p.4) et al. designed a set of

12 soft skills. When comparing these new skills with traditional scholastic tests,

Jenkins emphasises processes, collaborative learning, peer-based, and flexible modes

of discovery instead of outcomes, individual achievement, hierarchical teacher/pupil

relations, and subject-specific knowledge (Livingstone, 2012). For example, a Danish

animation project conducted by Nyboe and Drotner in 2008, showed how learning

was not just individual but also social. This is enabled by discussion, negotiation,

imagination, and conflict resolution (Livingstone, 2012). During the project, besides

learning software, team working and media production, pupils could also fulfil the

requirements of media literacy such as analysing and criticising the multiplicity of

representational forms and rhetoric that surround them in daily life (Livingstone,

2012). Hence, from Livingstone (2012), we can see how to harness peer culture and

thus deliver a positive learning outcome that is valued by teachers, children, and even

future employers.

It is commonly known that one cannot decide whether ICT will improve

students’ academic achievements despite a great deal of research having been

conducted, as none of them can provide a definitive answer. In fact, Livingstone

(2012), has shown that one can still have a positive learning outcome associated with

the present participatory culture if one can change the current methods of teaching

and learning. Therefore the contribution of the study is to investigate those gaps that

have been created from the technology used in education. It is hoped that as a result,

the study might be able to suggest ways to overcome these barriers and hence

promote a positive use of technology in education.

1.6 Organization of the Thesis

Chapter 1 describes the nature of participatory culture, its relation to the

digital divide in secondary schools, as well as the phenomena of participatory culture

in secondary schools, the cause of participatory divide, the change in future teaching

pedagogy, and the significance and implications of the study. Chapter 2 provides a

literature review concerning new media literacy and its framework, as well as its

relation to education. Chapter 3 presents the primary methodology of the case studies,

such as why have the cases been selected, the design procedure, as well as addressing

the research questions and data sources. Chapter 4 shows the results of the case

studies and the approaches to apply the prescribed factors to them. Chapter 5 will

discuss the results in detail and establish a theoretical framework showing the reasons

behind the digital divide in Hong Kong Secondary education. Finally, Chapter 6

draws together the conclusions and implications, as well as makes suggestions for

further improvements and future research

 Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter is a literature review relevant to participatory culture and digital

divides. Therefore, we can also review how participatory culture and media literacy

skill activities are connected and thus determine their relationship. Three concerns

have been raised in today’s popular participatory culture amongst students. They are

the participatory gap, transparency problems, and ethics challenges (Jenkins, 2009).

These problems can be overcome by a set of media literacy skills and social

competencies. In order to have an in-depth understanding of these skills and

competencies, there is a need to investigate first of all what is literacy, as well as

different types of literacy and their corresponding frameworks. Also this chapter will

show the relationship between education and literacy; as well as propose a research

framework for the study.

2.1 Digital Literacy

The idea of literacy has expanded over the last few years (Poore, 2013). In

the past, it was limited to the ability to read and write; but as Julia Davies (2009,

p.29) points out, “literacy is not just about decoding marks on a page; it is also about

performing social acts of meaning, where meanings and practices vary according to

context”. Therefore, Poore (2013) believes that “digital literacy” is a word which

considers our ordinary use of digitalized social media and sometimes can be

considered as “media literacy”, “ ICT literacy”, “information literacy”, or “new

media literacy”. In fact, according to her, the term “digital literacy” is recommended

since:
 1. We are not restricted to “digital literacy” because of tools, devices, and

their functions.

2. The term “media” does not cause misperception with “digital literacy”, which

has the meaning of both social processes and / or digital products that

organize their use.

We can also describe “digital” as a term referring to a spectrum of knowledge and

skills that lead to the illustration of literacy in such areas.

2.2 Conceptual Framework for Digital Literacy

Digital literacy is important for us to understand. This is because students have

to deal with 21st Century culture and life in the West as digital technology and social

media are their central concern (Poore, 2013). One might consider digital literacy as

“the ability to understand and apply digital tools” (Poore, 2013, p.170). It is not just

simply that “digital literacy” means to know how to point and click. David

Buckingham (2006, p.267) demonstrates that:

“ The skills that children need in relation to digital media are not confined to

those of information retrieval. As with print, they also need to be able to evaluate and

use information critically if they are to transform it into knowledge. This means

asking questions about the sources of information, the interests of its producers, and

the ways in which it represents the world; and understanding how these technological

developments are related to broader social, political and economic forces.”

 In Poore's view (2013), one has three core components that constitute a

useful framework for constructing students’ outstanding capacities in the digital

environment. These are functional, networking, and critical digital literacy.

Firstly, let us consider functional digital literacy. We should think about the

Web 2.0 age that does not require us to have knowledge in programming, hard

coding, or using Javascript to write a webpage, as it has already been done for us.

Under new social media, someone has already done all the “technical” work behind

the scenes, and “non-techies” need to have a web presence. It is unnecessary for us to

know how to make a website in a professional way such as building it from scratch.

Instead, functional digital literacy refers to knowing how to sign up to a service and

activate our account; it also refers to understanding how to “find, add, and invite

friends”; knowing how to upload a profile photo; understanding where we can sign in

and how to log out, and so on. Actually young people can obtain this kind of literacy

just by being online. Through social media, they also have their own social networks

and know where to click (Poore, 2013).

Secondly, there is network digital literacy which involves the understanding

of being a networked citizen. In other words, managing online identities and profiles.

Students know the results of uploading material, understand good data management,

have a clear concept of online risk management, are ready to read and understand the

“Terms of Service and Privacy Policies”, and recognize the implications regarding

privacy when displaying photos and other information. In fact, it is important to

understand the four basic properties of public networking. These are (1)

searchability, (2) persistence, (3) invisible audiences, and (4) replicability (Boyd,

2011). When one explores network digital literacy, questions such as “Do you know
what it means when Facebook asks for a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable,

royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in

connection with Facebook?” (Poore, 2013, p.172). There are many people who lack

this kind of digital literacy.

Finally, it is critical digital literacy that links people’s ability to use social

media with ICT to participate in cognitive processes and to critique the world in

general. In addition, through critical digital literacy, one can use skills to validate,

find, interpret, analyse, evaluate, critique, communicate, and synthesize information;

and from them try to transform old senses or create new ones. “Critical digital literacy

is about higher-level thinking and engagement with cultural, social, political, and

intellectual life more generally in a networked world” (Poore, 2013). Certainly, it is

true that students can have a critical digital literacy but not know how to use a digital

device like a computer, or how to manage online risks. In fact, one can be a

professional who has written critically informed and well-regarded books about

“digital schooling”, yet does not know how to tag a photo or decide whether it is

appropriate to do so.

The present conceptual framework of digital literacy consists of a number of

key areas such as special resources or communication related skills; and individual

capabilities and practices related to online identity (Ala-Mutka 2011; NCCA 2007).

It should be noted that “digital literacy is more than just the mastery of particular tools

or abilities” (R. Hall, et. al, 2014). There was a need for a framework that contained

an essential set of practices. These practices are contextualized and thus enhance the

use of technology in a more critical attitude (Bawden 2008).

 The present conceptual framework of digital literacy focuses on students’

abilities to use technology. Further work should be done in how to help teachers

change their teaching pedagogy. This is because they support our pupils’ development

of 21st Century’s skills with technology. This facilitates the development of the self-

evaluation framework in digital literacy for teachers (R. Hall, et. al, 2014).

Indeed, it is important to achieve the ultimate goal of Jenkins’ 2006

suggestion of 12 skills for students. One of the solutions is to provide more training

for teachers with reference to the evaluation framework mentioned previously. Thus,

educators (both teachers and teaching support staff) can fully utilize the following

educational theory.

2.3 The Educational Theory Behind Participatory

Culture - Social Constructivism

Social constructivism (itself an old concept) connecting social interaction

and social relations makes up a key element in studying (Poore, 2013). This can be

seen in John Dewey, Democracy and Education stated a century ago:

“...any social arrangement that remains vitally social, or vitally shaped, is

educative to those who participate in it. Only when it becomes cast in a mold and runs

in a routine way does it lose its educative power.” (Dewey, 2004 [1916], p.6)

As social media permits us to “ break the mold and the routine” for the

inherently digital behaviour, Dewey describes the students’ plan of social tasks which
show the behaviour. For instance, one can construct knowledge socially through

Wikis’ architecture as well as explicitly encouraging information sharing in social

networking.

1. Active Learning

"Active Learning" is something that students do in class rather than passively

listening to a teacher’s presentation1. The word “activity” should be emphasized as it is

not to be confused with simple “busyness” where we have no real philosopher’s

furtherance

(Poore, 2013). On this last point, Alfred North Whitehead warned:

“ In training a child to activity of thought, above all things we must beware

of what I will call inert ideas - that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the

mind without being utilized, or tested or thrown into fresh combinations.”

(Whitehead, 1967 [1929]. p.1)

For learning to happen, we need the above “fresh combinations” (Poore,

2013). We can promote artistic and creative expression through active learning

situations in social media (Poore, 2013). To cite an example, during the process of

podcasting, students can engage in “learning by doing”; they are not just familiarizing

themselves with those technical details of publishing and producing online audio, they

must also try to plan a radio show, perform topic research, arrange and give an

interview, and make a connection with an audience (Poore, 2013). Indeed, we cannot

achieve the above through senseless effort or mere duplication (Poore, 2013). They

require an active, thoughtful engagement from the students during the process of

creating something new (Poore, 2013).

2. Discovery Learning

The two key features of discovery learning are problem solving and

independence. In other words, discovery learning tries to enable problem solving and

thus its nature is constructivist, since students will create for themselves in the

learning process (Poore, 2013). When students formulate their questions, the

environment varies and

1 http://web.calstatela.edu/dept/chem/chem2/Active/

3. effects are observed. As they are performing experiments, making

necessary adjustments, and extracting information and facts, they are

actually participating in learner-centred, inquiry-based projects that help

them to construct new ideas and knowledge as well as consolidating the

old ones (Poore, 2013). In fact, one can use technology and social media

tools to encourage many of these activities such that students will try to

make the technology work; and in practice, blogs or bookmarks can be

used to encourage innovation, exploration, and the communication of

newly uncovered ideas and materials (Poore, 2013).

4. Peer Learning

Peer learning is also a constructivist approach to education as it places

students at the centre of learning affairs (Poore, 2013). Through education in peer

learning, students must work together, construct ideas, and share their understanding.

Good support via social media in their interactivity can be achieved (Poore, 2013). In

fact, all activities like social bookmarking, photo sharing, and game playing can help
promote participation and a joint-learning environment amongst students (Poore,

2013). To the contrary, there is certain co-operation and pre-conditions of positive

partnership that are necessary for the success of peer learning. Students can learn well

only if they have had good feelings towards working with others (Christudason,

2003).

4. Situated Learning

From the anthropological view in culture and society, we have established the

situated learning theory and the “inherently socially negotiated character of

meaning” (Lave & Wenger, 2009 [1991], p50). Under this model, students initially

take part at the periphery of an activity where they are not truly professional, this is

known as “legitimate peripheral participation”(Poore, 2013). During the process of

continuing participation in real social contexts, students develop an understanding of

the activity (Poore, 2013). “Although the originators of situated learning state that it

is not meant to be an educational technique or pedagogical strategy” (Lave and

Wenger, 2009 [1991], p.40), it can help to explain the process when teachers use

social media to support student learning. When they become more skilful and

professional, they move towards the centre of the culture and not only apply to social

networks but also can also explain how beginners become professional in all digital

media environments.

There are critics of the education theory – social constructivism. Firstly, as

experienced by Merill in 1997 and then by many others, learning in the form of

social negotiation wastes huge amounts of time. This is because students need a lot
of time for consensual and collaborative understanding of the majorities actions.

This results in massive inefficiencies in learning. Secondly, constructivist theory

widens the gap between privileged and those less privileged. Since students with

good literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy as well as other skills will have

support at home and thus have a more self-organized environment. Others may

have less social support. Finally, in social constructivism, every criticism is

considered as a social construct and results in the “rejection of many other well-

established scientific and evidence-based theories” (Clark, 2013).

This study finds that there are both pros and cons to social constructivism.

However, one of the things that must be paid attention to is the widening of the gap

between the privileged and less privileged. This may create some form of digital

divide amongst students in schools. Hence, the above situation causes us to explore

the digital divide in education since the use of ICT will inevitably create a gap

between students. In fact “computer use during the 1980s did not bring education

close to equal educational opportunity, rather it maintained and exaggerated existing

inequalities in education input, processes of computer learning, and output” (Sutton,

1991, p.494). The following is the framework for the digital divide in education (also

the framework of this study) as proposed by Hohlfeld et al. in 2008.

2.4 Framework of the Study

As Hohlfeld et al. in 2008 showed, the digital divide in education is a complex

multi-levelled phenomenon, especially concerning digital literacy. In his view, the

digital divide in education is classified into three levels: Level 1: Access, Level 2:

Classroom use, and Level 3: Student empowerment. Each level produces the level

above. The lowest level tells us that the cause of the inequity of the digital divide in

education for students is mainly due to uneven access to hardware (digital devices)

such as smart phones, tablets, and personal computers as well as software and the

Internet. At the middle level, there are several different ways in which the

technologies can be applied during teaching in the classroom. At the highest level,

students individually participate in digital device access and the use of technology for

educational purposes outside school that may lead to inequitable empowerment. The

inequity appears to narrow down progressively as the digital divide in education goes

through the three connected levels. The lowest level concerns the institution whilst the

middle level focuses on the classroom, and the highest level focuses on the individual

students.

1. Digital Devices and Internet Access

At the first level of the digital divide in education, the study will investigate

the basic technology infrastructures of interviewed schools as well as determine

whether they can provide suitable equipment for students to access. In addition, the

study also tries to determine those factors that affect students’ access of digital

devices and the Internet in schools such as social economic status (SES). It was found

that in the US, amongst ethnic, linguistic, and racial groups, their socioeconomic

status was the main reason for experiencing a digital divide in education (Valadez,

2007). Researchers have pointed out that low SES students did not have much

opportunity to access digital devices since their schools could not afford the high and

daily costs of such technology usage (Clark, 2002). Those schools with low SES were

often equipped with unworkable computers, old-versions of software, and unreliable

Internet connections (Moore, 2002). Although there is a gap between different

schools in the US according to their SES, the situation has changed because of

government funding, software standardization, and affordable costs for digital

devices and broadband Internet (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker, 2008).

Therefore, this study intends to find out the technology infrastructure status, its

access by students, and its usage in Hong Kong secondary schools.

2. Technology Uses in the Classroom

At the middle level of the digital divide in education, this study looks to

explore how students use technology in the classroom and the reasons for the use, as

well as the depth of integrating technology related activities into the classroom

(Harris, 2010). Hence the first research question, RQ1: What will be the digital tools

used by students to present ideas in their lessons after using digital media, and why do

they use such tools?

 In US, students and teachers found that it is difficult for them to have relevant

use of technology in education as they only have limited access to digital devices, the

Internet, and software within low SES classrooms (Hohlfeld et al., 2008).

Moreover, Lodree (2002) stated that in low SES classrooms, the rare

use of technology prevents teachers and students from experiencing the

changes of educational computing in case of learning improvement and

inequity reduction.

Indeed, low SES classrooms only consider technology use as adjunct, while

high SES classrooms use it in a way that causes changes in learning (Subramony,

2007). In high SES classrooms, students interact with the teacher’s content through a

lively learning curriculum from digital tools and the Internet (Harris, 2010). This is

what we call “transformative” learning activities (Monroe, 2004). The technology-

based activities were used in order to create knowledge, develop high-level thinking,

and understand in-depth content (Clark & Gorski, 2002). The result is students can

develop skills and are well prepared for the digitalized world economy (Swain,

2002). Cultural and social capital can be identified, developed, and leveraged

amongst high SES students (Attewell, 2001). On the contrary, in low SES

classrooms, they focus on practice and drill activities (Garland, 2002). In comparing

these two types of classrooms, inequity would be aggravated, in addition to widening

the achievement gap (Warschauer, 2003).

According to Harris (2010), in low SES classrooms, there is little

engagement in the creation of learning opportunities since teachers cannot draw

upon students’ cultural capital. In 2007, Subramony found that students’ family

values; diverse backgrounds and linguistic differences are factors absent from digital
activities, to which low SES students contributed. Therefore, our second research

question, RQ2: Why is there a gap between students’ behaviour in using digital tools

during class and online content sharing, and how does it affect learning?

3. Empowerment of Students and the Community

The highest level of the digital divide in education concerns those who are

affected by the inequity - the students (Harris, 2010). Indeed, we can enhance self-

empowerment through the use of digital technology for educational purposes but this

is not recognized by low SES students (Harris, 2010). Holhfeld et al. (2008) labelled

this kind of inequity as whether “[students] know how to use [technology] for the

betterment of their quality of life” (p.1650).

In 2006, Jenkins described a set of social skills to solve three associated

problems with participatory culture. This related to DiBello (2005), who predicted

digital device usage encourages the development of critical competencies including

knowledge in academic content, in-depth understanding, and skills for problem

solving. Furthermore, students who can make use of school technology and hence

develop and attain technology skills gain an advantage in being “socialized into, and

prepared for, the tech-heaviness of contemporary society” (Clark & Gorski, 2002,

p.29). In addition, Subramony (2007) suggested that differences in technology

proficiency have effects on low SES students in the form of gaps that connected to

future earning in technical skills, gaps in civic involvement for students’ in-

proficiency of Internet use, and gaps with effects on civil right issues and equity. All

of the above in the US leads to the third research question, RQ3: How do we
enhance the participatory culture of students for “positive and quality usage” (Yuen

et al., 2014, p. 13) in terms of peer influence, teachers, and parental guidance?
 Top Level
Empowerment Individual
of Students

Middle Level
Use of Technology by
Classroom
Teachers and Students

Software, Hardware and Internet Bottom Level

School
Access, Support for Technology Infrastructure

Figure 1: Hohlfeld et al. ‘s (2008) Model of the Digital Divide in Education

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the design and methodology of the research. That is to

say the research first investigates the creation of multimodal artefacts amongst

students – what the multimodal elements are that they will use for their creation when

presenting ideas and why. The chapter then explores the reasons for the technology

gap and online participatory behaviour amongst students in creating multimodal

artefacts through Web 2.0 and then explains how it affects their learning. Furthermore,

it tries to find out the effects of those factors such as peer influence, and teacher and

parental guidance in the participatory culture for academic purposes.

3.1 Overview

This study employs a qualitative research methodology in the form of multiple

case studies. It implements under the public policy research project and titled “The

Digital Divide in Education: An Experiential Understanding”. It subsides by the

Research Grants Council of the HKSAR Government. Its aim is to “understand the

social, cultural, and contextual aspects of students’ experiences with ICT and new

media; to examine why students are more or less likely to be digitally excluded in

various contexts; and analyse the impacts of digital exclusion on both the students'

formal and informal learning” (Yuen, 2012). The criteria for the practical cases

selection includes (1) students that benefit from the “I Learn At Home” programme,

(2) senior secondary, and (3) different levels of ICT usage. Altogether the study

targets a sample of 6 cases (Table 1) reflecting a variety of levels of study and ICT

usage. In addition, the study also interviewed teachers’ for further background

information.
 Low ICT usage High ICT usage Total number of
students students cases

Senior Secondary

(S4-S-6) 3 cases 3 cases 3 cases

Table 1: Students’ ICT Usage

Background

School Teacher Gender Position

Mal
School A Teacher A e ICT Teacher

Teacher B Female Bible Knowledge Teacher

Mal
School B Teacher C e ICT Teacher

Table 2: Teachers’ Background Information (Li, 2014)

3.2 Designation of the Research

3.2.1 Qualitative Case Study Research

This study employs a qualitative form of case study research. Two schools are

selected as the unit of study. The research questions are concerned with “What”,

“Why”, and “How”. A great deal of literature was reviewed, as shown in Chapter 2,

and the Holhlfeld et al. (2008) model was used. Researchers collected all relevant data

with interviewees including students, teachers, parents, and principals. Individual

interviews, audio recordings, and multimodal artefacts created by students were

investigated. Each case unit was described in detail and this will be explored further in

Chapter 4. Inductively, a framework was grounded in open, axial, and selective coding.

Furthermore, network and matrix diagrams were created and can be found in the

appendix. There were multiple methods to conduct the research. These were the

students’ individual, and the teachers’ focus group interviews, as well as site

observation and reviewing school related documents. Certainly, there are critics to the

qualitative research approach, in part because there are a lot of disordered elements

such as the background.of the students’ family and the nature of their parents’ jobs.

Moreover, the sample size was small, where only six students, their parents, and three

teachers were chosen, when compared to the hundreds of interviewees in other

quantitative studies.

3.2.2 Research Process

The research process first reviews the school documents. Then follows a

teacher's focus group interview. After that there is a class observation followed by

interviews for selected teachers and students. They are used to collect useful data to

address the research questions. After that, the results and findings will be examined.

Finally, there will be a discussion and conclusion. Figure 2 shows the steps for

research collection and the processing of data (Li, 2014).

The research processes of this study
3.3 Implementation Process

3.3.1 Analysis of Related Documents

“Document analysis is a form of qualitative research in which documents are

interpreted by the researcher to give voice and meaning around an assessment topic.

Analysing documents incorporates coding content into themes similar to how focus

group or interview transcripts are analysed2.” In this thesis, each qualitative case

study for the two selected schools, related ICT development documents, and their

infrastructure are analysed. Their corresponding ICT visions and policies are also

reviewed.

3.3.2 Interviews

“Interviewing is a valuable assessment tool because it allows the participant to

share their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs in their own words. The use of direct

quotations in the assessment findings helps the researcher present an accurate

depiction of what is being evaluated3.” In total six students (Table 3) and their parents

were interviewed qualitatively. They were selected from the two selected schools case

study units. In-depth questions are asked to find out their daily habits and usage of

digital media in school and at home.

“The focus group is a qualitative method of assessment, encouraging a free

flow of ideas. It is typically led by one moderator but can sometimes be assisted by a

scribe

2.http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/_files/assessment/Assessment-Methods.pdf

3.Schuh & Upcraft, (2001). Assessment Practice in Student Affairs. Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco. 24
or other team members4.” In practice, two groups of teachers were selected from the

case study units and questioned about their views on students using digital media,

their methods of teaching in school, as well as collaboration with students after

school.

3.3.3 Observations

“Field observation is another method for collecting qualitative data. The

objective of the observation is to collect data in a “natural setting.” As with most

qualitative data collection methods, the individual identified as the observer is the

instrument for the data collection5”. In order to have an idea of the daily lives of the

students, actual class observation was conducted during the research. Hence, there

was a better understanding about the students’ learning behaviour in regard to using

digital media to determine what factors lead to the differences in academic

achievement.

3.4 Data Analysis and Conclusions

Finally, the data analysis of these case studies involved the coding of data and

salient points or structures was identified. From Creswell, 1998; Miles and Huberman

(1994), data analysis is a spiral, interactive, or cyclical process where profits can be

earned from general to specific observations. Firstly, the collected data was

transcribed and worked together with written records, then data was coded according

to the three processes: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. Then the

information was presented systematically and conclusions drawn through a matrix

(with defined rows and columns) and a network (with a series of nodes with links

between them).

Each case may signify a diverse thematic discovery and portray a clustering of

properties or themes. In order to have an insight into a topic and look at it in depth, a

particular case in the proposed study was examined. Miles & Huberman (1994)

proposed a grounded approach and constant comparative method

4.https://www.studentvoice.com/app/wiki/

5.Schuh & Upcraft, (2001). Assessment Practice in Student Affairs. Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco.
(Strauss, 1987) to provide a cross-case as well as a within-case analysis, and to

construct theoretical models. In fact, case studies can be used for analytic

generation and theoretical elaboration (Stake, 1995 & Yin, 1994), where the

researcher attempts to link findings from a particular case to their own theoretical

frameworks or concepts.

Figure 3: The Spiral of Analysis Integrated into the Qualitative Research Process
(Boeije, 2010)
Chapter Four: Research Findings
This chapter presents the findings of the study. It begins with a brief review of

the sampled schools and participants – the two schools’ general ICT situation (Section

4.1). Then follows the inductive categories of findings - the interviewed participants,

teachers, and students (Section 4.2), and then there is a brief summary of the findings

(Section 4.3).

4.1 A Brief Review of the Sampled Schools and

Participants

1. School A’s General ICT Situation

One of the sampled secondary schools, school A, was a band 1 English

medium Instruction (EMI) school located in Kowloon and had around 1,000 students.

The interview participants included the principal, three New Senior Secondary (NSS)

5 students for individual questioning, and a separate focus group interview for

teachers and students. After the interview with the Principal, there was a site visit to

the school. It had three Multi-Media-Learning Centre (MMLC) rooms, and a

sufficient number of computers for students to have ICT lessons up to senior

secondary 6.
 According to information provided by the school head, each classroom had one

networked computer together with an overhead projector. There were also two technical

support specialists on hand to handle any emergency situations during the use of ICT

teaching or any other daily computer related problems faced. Moreover, the school

network was blocked by a firewall service provided by one of the local universities, and

computer servers were password protected and shielded to prevent any hacking into

important school data or materials. When questioned about whether teachers could have a

choice of not using ICT for teaching in normal classes, the principal said that it was okay

not to use ICT in subjects other than computer class. He emphasised that the most

important thing was to teach students in a well-organized manner. Otherwise, there would

be complaints from both students and parents. He also stated that the school policy was

to encourage students and teachers to use ICT for learning and teaching respectively.

In addition, from the multiple teacher’s focus group interview, we learnt that it

was common practice to ask students to give a presentation during class. In non-ICT

teacher A’s opinion, classmates were bored if students just used traditional methods such

as PowerPoint. However, students who created video for presentations would make the

lesson more attractive since movies contain sound and animation, and classmates would

tend to be more attentive. ICT teacher B mentioned that there were ten computers located

in the school library for students to search through websites for relevant data, and to do

revision. Students could also get their work printed out in the library as well. Every year

the school provides twenty notebook computers for students to borrow for studying

purposes if their own computer is out of order or in case they do not have a computer at

home. Finally, there was a need to upgrade some of the computers since they still used

“Windows XP” as the operating system. Extra resources will therefore be needed in this

case.
4.1.2 School B’s General ICT Situation

The other sampled school was located in the south of Hong Kong Island. It

was a band 1 (Chinese Medium Instruction) CMI secondary school with an excellence

reputation in subjects such as Mathematics and Sports. It had 29 standard classrooms

with 2 extra classrooms for small group teaching. All classrooms were air conditioned

and equipped with computers, LCD projectors, and a network connection; providing a

suitable environment for effective teaching and learning. The school had put a great

deal of effort into implementing Information Technology (IT) infrastructure because it

is seen as very important in assisting students to enrich their knowledge base. In fact,

the school had a Computer Aided Learning Centre (CAL) and a Multimedia Learning

Centre (MMLC). They were aimed at helping students familiarise themselves with the

use of IT and provide them with effective tools in the learning process of different

subjects especially Chinese, English, and Putonghua. In addition to the learning

centres, the school was also fully connected with high-speed wired, and wireless

networks. Hence, students and teachers could have access to the Internet anywhere on

the school campus. The school also had introduced a school-based Intranet learning

system that provided a virtual platform for extending the classroom in

to the cyber world. In other words, students could access their email, file, and learning

materials anywhere through their individual accounts. Finally, there were computers with

Internet connection in the library to help students explore the world virtually.

The above two schools’ ICT environments and cultures were observed and

noted in order to have a better general idea of ICT usage as well as understand the

academic background of the interviewed students in the schools. Hence, we could

therefore determine the factors that constitute a digital gap and subsequently suggest

feasible approaches to solve the problem.

4.2 Inductive Categories and Details of the Findings

According to Johnson and Christensen (2004), “Grounded theory is a general

methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered

and analysed” (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p.273). The result is obtained from the

methodology of grounded theory. In this research, the aim is also to construct a

grounded framework. The theory is based on concepts that are generated directly from

data collected in the interviews with the students and teachers. In other words, the

theory is derived inductively. Indeed, to acquire a deserved grounded theory, there are

three stages or types of data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) with the procedures as

follows (Johnson & Christensen, 2004):

1. The open coding process starts after the collection of some initial data that

involves reading transcripts line-by-line, then by categorizing the data into

discrete elements. That is to say, phrases and important words are labelled in the

transcribed data.
To cite an example, interviews from teachers, students, and the principal in the form

of audio records were first transcribed and translated through careful negotiation and

consideration from the researchers (Li, 2014). An in-depth open coding analysis

example from open records of school A and school B are shown in Table 5.1. Hence,

there are 28 concepts, 10 subcategories, and 3 main categories (Li, 2014).

10 subcategories were formed (Li, 2014): computer software skills, hardware access,

information literacy, teacher pedagogy, contributions to using

digital / media tools, leisure, controversies in using digital / media tools, resource

related, academic related, and others.

2. Axial coding follows open coding as the second step. The process develops

those first concepts into categories which are, in fact, more abstract concepts

and then organizes them. The points that the participants mentioned repeatedly

are noted, and so is the relationship between the categories in the data.

Therefore, we discover how the phenomenon operates.

In fact, when the concepts captured and those categories in the open coding are

repeatedly compared, three main categories are obtained from the wide ranging

considerations of the connections between categories (Li, 2014). To conclude, the

three main categories captured are: technology gaps, usage gaps, and reasons for the

gaps. These are shown in table 5.

3. Selective coding is the last step of the data analysis where the finishing

touches are put on the grounded theory for the thesis. The main idea is reflected

in the data as well as in the results produced during open coding and axial

coding. The induced ground theory is shown as either diagrams or narratives. In

practice, after relating all the categories through the process of open coding and

axial coding, it is important to verify their affiliation and extend to those

categories that are not conceptualized (Li, 2014). Certainly, from the core

category “The Digital Divide in Secondary Schools”, some of the other categories

can be broken down through discussion, interactive comparison, analysis, and

discussion of the audio record within the 28 concepts (Li, 2014). Lastly, the 10

subcategories and the associated 28 concepts have been classified into three main

categories (Yuen et al. 2010) and principles of quality control in the industry.
4.2.1. Technology Gaps (Creating Artefacts to Present Ideas)

The data collected shows that there are technology gaps amongst students by

using multimodal elements to present ideas. As the interviews tell us, students may

have differences in technology usage such as software skills when presenting ideas

related to their academic study. In addition, students might face other influences such

as the lack of knowledge in software function, problems in accessing hardware,

information literacy, and technical difficulties during their daily use of ICT. All these

issues affect the creation of multimodal artefacts.

4.2.1.1 Computer Software Skills

Students’ computer software skills determine the way they present their

academic ideas in their project assignments. That is to say, whether or not students

can present more interactivity (utilizing visual and sound effects) to draw the

audience’s attention or if they only use text and diagrams (the basic requirements for a

demonstration) that is relatively unengaging. This will show if there is a software

skills gap amongst students through what type of multimodal elements they use when

presenting their ideas. The interviews revealed the following findings:

In teacher A’s view, she claimed that there was a gap in the computer technical

skills when presenting ideas in her class. She further explained:

 “Once during class, some of the students used Adobe Creative Media to create

a video or movie, they did it in a beautiful way with sound and animation and it was

well done. But the other students did not present their ideas in such a complex way.

Thus, the difference in their skill level could be seen. Actually, we did not specify any
requirements for the mode of presentation. If one had the skill (using Creative Media),

they could present their ideas in such a beautiful and wonderful way.” Teacher B

agreed with teacher A’s opinion, mentioning that:

“Since the curriculum in most primary schools is school based, there are

differences in content. For example, with the Chinese Input Method, some of the S.1

students can type as fast as 60 words per minute. However, others may not even know

how to divide a Chinese character in typing. Hence, this may contribute to the

differences in the course curriculum.”

He also added that:

“In general, students have no problems in using MS Word, Excel, or

PowerPoint and in fact most of them can use PowerPoint to present their ideas.”

Student A thought that most of her classmates had better ICT skills than she

did. For example, there were lots of functions in PowerPoint that she did not know

about, such as drawing pictures. In actuality, her classmates believed that she had

more computer knowledge than them and was an expert in ICT, and would ask her to

solve problems on their computers or mobile phones.

4.2.1.2 Hardware Access

Another factor that affects the use of multimodal elements through Web 2.0 is

the accessibility of different hardware. The trouble involved in accessing hardware

such as smart phones and video recording instruments makes students shy from

creating animation and sound effects or even social media, as indicated below:

When the interviewer asked whether students had to use ICT tools and new

media such as Facebook and WhatsApp to do their homework (chatting, texting, and

sending photos), teacher B responded:

“There are still some students who do not have smart phones and thus cannot use

WhatsApp. And one or two out of ten of the students still do not have a Facebook

account. Therefore, generally speaking, our assignments would not require the use of

such technologies.”

In addition, “When you use new media, you need to record video, and thus

you need to borrow a video recorder for example. The procedure is troublesome and

some students do not have easy access to the necessary equipment”.

The dialogue shows that teachers faced difficulties in assigning homework

that required students to use new media tools as some of the students did not have the

relevant accounts or equipment even though they do not lack the necessary skills.

4.2.1.3 Information Literacy

The validity of information on the web constitutes another factor. Before

students can create multimodal artefacts, they need to search for reliable data that is

related to the assignment topic, as well as to have collaborative discussions with

classmates. The interviewed students believed that while it is true that anybody can

edit the content of WiKi, there are experts who would occasionally proofread the

content, and they trust that the information is therefore correct. Students believed that

the key to avoiding cyber bullying is education through ethics which itself does not

come under the subject of ICT. Teachers always urged them not to use ICT for

entertainment but for searching necessary and useful data to deal with their
homework. In addition to data searching, the last factor about information literacy is

security. The students recounted that they did not have soft or hard copies of

passwords for social media or email accounts. In fact, they liked to have a set of

passwords or else there was a risk of having their multimodal creations hacked
4.2.1.4 Difficulties in Daily Usage of ICT

According to the uploaded audio record, students face different technical

problems during their daily use of ICT:

1) The movie being blocked by the owner and having to switch to the web site

YouTubeGoToMP3 to view it,

2) Newer versions of MS Excel have changed the function buttons and an

Internet search was required to learn the new layout,

3) Problems associated with loading films or videos on some web sites,

4) Did not know how to write in-depth Visual Basic programmes,

5) Wanted to search for specific news but could not find it,

6) Used WiKi to search for a chemistry term but failed so finally had to

reconstruct (re-definite) it to check.

4.2.2. Usage Gaps (Between Academic and Leisure)

In general, students spend a lot of time in their daily use of ICT tools for non-

academic reasons and this may have a negative effect on their academic results. In

actuality, non-academic use of ICT is directly related - low SES students usually have

fewer resources or guidance and thus more time is consumed for leisure. The

interviews revealed the following findings:

4.2.2.1 Leisure

Student B’s classmates spent a lot of time on computers. She could not stop

herself from watching online videos unrelated to homework. She also explained that her

female classmates liked to read articles about movie stars and watch variety shows from

Korea, while male classmates liked to play online games and always would say “Let’s

start playing at eight tonight”. She further went on to saythat “The main role of the

computer is to act as an entertainment tool and the other function is for doing

homework assignments”.

The most popular reason for using the computer for student B is listening to

music and watching online videos. A few years ago, she used Facebook for chatting

with friends and she wrote a blog. In particular, she also mentioned that “Since the

appearance of WhatsApp and Facebook, the use of email is less frequent; and it is the

same with MSN”. Normally, she spent at least 4 hours per day on entertainment.

Regarding security issues, she did not let others know her username or password for

Facebook. Some of her online friends were her classmates and others were known

through forums or online games. However, she felt safe since nobody online knew her

real identity.

4.2.2.2 Controversies of Using Digital / Media Tools

In school B, the interviewed students liked to use smart phones for entertainment

such as social networking and watching videos. Students would use computers only when

they needed to do subject assignments and projects. If they were studying and doing

homework at home, they would use WhatsApp to discuss subject matter, not Facebook to

post messages, and sometimes they would record audio messages using WhatsApp. In

general, boys preferred to spend time on ICT mainly for playing games, while girls

mainly used it as a communication tool, for example using WhatsApp. However, one of

the student stated that: “He would not spend more than four or five hours on the computer

as he did not like playing online games; the reason being that spending too much time on
entertainment meant spending less time studying, which would in turn affect his academic

achievements.”

“As far as she knew, there were students who used WhatsApp continuously. It

might have even become a hindrance to their studies.” Also, both of the teachers

interviewed had started to use Facebook as a means of communication or for assisted

learning after school. However, they did not encourage it.

The use of ICT in teaching and learning can enhance the participatory culture

through the teacher’s pedagogy which is beneficial to teaching and learning. This is

because while teachers require students to use

more ICT in homework assignments, such as projects, students may need to

participate more in social networking with collaborative discussions and sharing of

multimodal artefacts like video and audio files.

4.2.2.3 Teachers’ Pedagogy

One student interviewed told the researcher that, basically all teachers used

PowerPoint to teach across all academic subjects including Health Management and

Social Care, English, Mathematics, and Liberal Studies. She added:

“He / She (the teacher) likes to use PowerPoint software and to check the answers

with it as well; he / she also develops subject notes or guidelines using PowerPoint and

then prints it out for us. He / she gives us examples and then asks us for the answer.

Lesson notes are also in PowerPoint, the teacher sets questions and then asks us to give

the answers. The teacher tells us the model answer after we have finished but he / she

never lets us use his / her computer because there is only one in the classroom and

there are around thirty students in the class.” Chinese language teachers let students

watch academic related videos as teaching material during the class. All of the above

examples are the pedagogy used by teachers.

In addition, most students liked to use WhatsApp for discussions after school,

since the software is a more convenient way to communicate. They would not be

contacted or notified if they were not watching the messages. This event may create

the time phase out between the corresponding communication parties. However,

during normal school hours, students could not bring mobile phones to school unless

they asked for special permission. One of the female students and her classmates

sometimes liked to share ideas and discuss ICT programming. On the other hand,
when students faced ICT academic problems they would usually ask their ICT subject

teacher for help.

One of the student said: “Teachers require students to use PowerPoint instead of new

media for homework assignments even though they do not have computers at home,

school A can provide this.”

From one of the teachers interviews, we are told that students liked to use ICT

tools for assisted learning.

“In the past, teachers printed out the model answer for students. However, nowadays, as

Android and iOS become more popular, I can send answers in pdf format. Then my

students can create groups and share the files amongst themselves. Actually, they are

very familiar with sharing files. In other words, they are good at exchanging data and

ideas. In schools ICT tools are restricted by curriculum, but using the tools for learning

has become a common practice for students. For example, in the past, a student was

required to bring a dictionary to school. But now they aren’t since they can use smart

phones or iPads to search for the meaning of words and thus language learning is made

easier.”

4.2.2.4 Contributions of Using Digital / Media Tools

One of the teacher said: “In the NSS ICT curriculum, there is a detailed description of

the different functions of MS Office software. For example, each function of Excel is

discussed one by one and so is Word. This could be a great help for learning in other

subjects. For example, suppose one has a project to complete but they do not know how

Word operates regarding compiling a table of contents, then work will stall since they

have to label each page before then typing out the table of contents from top to bottom,

all of which takes time. However, if one has studied ICT and knows how Word operates

then they can simply update the table of contents by clicking a button and the job can

be done far more easily. ” This means whenever students can fully utilize their ICT

skills they will be rewarded by being able to apply them when studying other subjects.
 Although it has been said that using ICT as an entertainment tool is not good

practice, there are benefits to using ICT in teaching as commented on by the students

interviewed. To cite an example, ICT will provide a clear view of what they are

learning, students will know more about the teaching materials, and the flow of

teaching will be better than just using chalk and blackboards. However, there is less

interaction between the teacher and students since everybody will have to look at their

computers and view the content despite being presented in a systematic way. Students

like teachers using ICT tools such as PowerPoint because the lessons become more

interactive as the software has a lot of visual effects and class becomes more

interesting. Students also dislike reading from the blackboard when it is covered with a

lot of words.

At the same time, it is hard for students to understand difficult mathematical

theories or concepts such as calculus during lessons. By introducing web searching,

students can find related resources, backgrounds to theories, and examples of calculus

that can help clarifying matters. In such a way, the web search becomes an auxiliary

tool to help students’ learning. Moreover, there is an extended module about movie and

video art in the Chinese Language subject. Students recounted that if there was a video

for demonstrating what the meaning of close-up is and what the near mirror telescope

effect means, the teaching result would be better. Certainly, auxiliary videos would help

them to understand sophisticated concepts but students still need time to think in detail.

These are just some of the ways that ICT could help in teaching.

In addition, another student said: "Usually, when my classmates and I are

working on a project, we will finish different parts independently at home, and then use

Facebook to exchange the completed work". In other words, they work individually and
then send and receive different parts of the work to one another. She went on to say that

in rare cases they would open a chat room for discussion. When facing study problems

in ICT, she would ask her subject teacher. When the interviewer asked her about using a

computer to do her homework, she said that she always uses the Internet to search for

information on subjects like Liberal Studies and when writing Chinese argumentative

essays. Data has been selected to support these arguments.

4.2.3. Reasons for the Technology and Usage Gaps (Creating

Multimodal Artefacts)

There are several reasons for the technology gap in creating multimodal

artefacts. These are primarily resource related, academic related, but also various other

factors. Socioeconomic status, housing environment, and the economic background of a

student and his / her family have been grouped into resource related technology gaps.

More resources lead to the use of more advanced technology and hence a greater gap

with those who lack resources.

4.2.3.1 Resources

Socioeconomic status is a significant cause for the technology gap. This is

because low SES students cannot afford expensive hardware / software for creating

multimodal artefacts. In fact, teacher B stated:

“Socioeconomic status has a great influence in affecting the use of ICT because

ICT requires money to implement, and instruments require money. For instance, you
might buy a mini-iPad for three thousand dollars but Apple Air might be six thousand

dollars. All these items require money. If you do not have a strong socioeconomic

background, you will be affected.”

Furthermore, he said that parents do not resist the use of new media to aid study.

This is because new media has become part of the students’ daily life and they do not

want to be left behind. Another important factor is the students’ living environment. If

the family is richer, parents may have more of a positive attitude. If not they might not

be so ready to use new media to aid study inside or outside of school.

When the interviewer asked about the effects of socioeconomic status on the use

of ICT amongst students, he was told that:

“Economic status does affect the use of ICT amongst students. When you buy an

iPad, it matters whether it can access the Internet or if it needs any extra hardware for it to

perform a task. If such extra accessories are lacking then it may affect its

performance.”

The student felt that the government’s help in ICT teaching and learning appeared to be

mismatched, and was not providing enough support. There were also barriers in

promoting such a policy. For example, a policy might require ten elements to

implement but the government only provides six; the rest needs to be taken care of by

the family, school, or the students. This then becomes a barrier.

4.2.3.2 Academic

Another reason for the technology gap is academic related. This is because a

family’s educational background or guidance can help students acquire more technical

knowledge or solve problems outside of school and hence bridge the gap. The

following describes one student’s view:

“There is no one who can provide academic guidance for me. If I am home, I

use WhatsApp to ask my ICT subject teacher.”

In fact, she and her classmates form a group in order to ask the teacher. After that, they

also discuss the issue amongst themselves. She went on to explain:

“If eventually I forget the answer, I will ask the teacher again and continue to do

so until I can remember and understand.”

The average educational level of the interviewed students’ parents was at the

secondary level.

Relatively speaking, they could not be of much help when students faced

academic problems. They also did not enforce authority or offer guidance on the matter

of their children’s use of computers. Students were free to use computers when they

were at home, and they usually owned more than one. Moreover, these computers acted

as a source of entertainment for activities such as social networking, playing games,

and watching videos. During ICT lessons, the teacher presented technology such as

basic Excel, PowerPoint, Word, and even used Creative media or Visual Basic

Programming to edit videos.

One of the interviewed teacher said: “ There are differences not just in ICT, related to

the background of the families of the students. If students’ parents have a higher level

of education, then the students may have more resources available and receive more

care growing up. On the contrary, if parents work long hours, the students might have

less resources and also care less. This is not only reflected by ICT.” This statement

shows that a family’s educational background is an important factor affecting students’

use of ICT and subsequently their interests as well.

4.2.3.3 Other Factors

There are a number of other factors that can contribute to the technology gap.

These include the students’ interests, government’s policies and support, and the

students' family background. These also determine the use of ICT in studying at home.

From the interviews we learned the following from the teachers as to why there was a

technology gap between the students:

“ From the macroscopic point of view, most students show that they have

acquired similar Web 2.0 techniques such as using WhatsApp in order to communicate,

have Facebook and email accounts etc., and are all ready to process these skills. But, if

educators take a deeper look, they will see a difference between the present day young

students and the previous generation. When the youth of today has an interest in a

particular subject, like video recording and editing, they can learn very fast. Therefore,

they will not study much at all if they are not interested. That is the gap and it is not

related to ICT.”
 “Government policies and support are insufficient and not to the point. To cite

an example, our government helps low income students to buy computers. This is

helpful but the policy can be done a better way.”

“ It is not up to the teachers to decide whether students can use ICT and new

media to study at home. Rather, their family background determines it. That is to say,

whether he / she has the resources to get them and then want to use them. When they

need to use ICT and new media to make a presentation at work, it helps if they have

used the techniques previously at school. That would impress their employer or

supervisor, thus teachers are willing to use these technologies before their students

leave school. Unfortunately, as the school is located in a public housing area the

students’ families do not have a strong socioeconomic background and so the students

may not have access to ICT or new media at home.”

4.3 Summary of the Findings

In brief, the findings are summarised as follows:

1. There is a technology gap in students’ computer software skills, hardware access,

and information literacy.

1. Most teachers still use software such as PowerPoint to teach and have begun

to share teaching materials through new and social media. They even discuss

with their students about academic problems after school.

2. Without guidance from the parents, students tend to spend most of their

leisure time on their computers and mobile phones. This may adversely affect

their academic results. This raises controversies about using ICT in schools.

However, there are also benefits to using ICT in teaching and learning amongst

students

3. There are reasons for the technology and usage gaps which are down to poor

guidance, students’ family background, and low socioeconomic status.

Chapter Five: Results and Discussion

This chapter discusses the data collected during interviews. Section 5.1 shows

the inductive categories discovered in Chapter 4 (i.e. open coding) and axial coding will

be shown in Appendix 1. Section 5.2 presents the relation between the findings and the

research questions. Finally, Section 5.3 discusses the results obtained from the

interviews and hence lays the groundwork for a proposed framework about the reasons

for the technology and usage gaps in digital /media tools. This constitutes a difference

in learning outcomes / negative effects on academic achievement.

5.1 Inductive Categories for Open and Axial Coding of

Interview Results

The following table shows the categories of the open coding (Table 5) for the

interview results from Chapter 4:

Inductive Categories Participant Responses

Technology Gaps A: Computer Software Skills

1. Use different types of computer software

for class presentations.

2. Lots of PowerPoint functions which

student (she) does not know about.

B: Hardware Access

1. Students cannot access digital / media

tools such as mobile phones.

2. Students cannot easily get necessary

equipment for recording movies.

 C: Information Literacy

1. Validation of web information is lacking.

2. Students should use different passwords.

Gaps in Using Digital / Media Tools A. Teachers’ Pedagogy

(Between Academic and Leisure) 1. Teachers use PowerPoint to teach.

2. Students use WhatsApp for discussion

with teachers after school.

3. Ask students to use PowerPoint for

homework assignments.
 B. Contributions of Using Digital / Media
tools

1. Full utilization of digital skills can be

rewarded, e.g. to save time and effort.

2. Using PowerPoint gives a clear view of

teaching materials.

3. Convenient to use Facebook for

exchanging data, and open chat rooms to

discuss projects.

4. Web searching and videos act as auxiliary

tools in helping student learn.

C. Leisure:

1. Main role of the computer is for

Entertainment. Other uses are for

Assignments.

2. Boys like playing games and girls like

chatting using WhatsApp.

3. Watching web videos.

4. Reading local news articles.

D. Controversies of Using Digital / Media

tools

1. Students’ non-stop use of digital /media

tools for leisure affects learning.

2. Using too much social media affects

academic achievement.

Reasons for Gap A. Resource Related

1. Socioeconomic status.

2. Students’ living environment.

3. Economic
B. Academic Related

4. No one provides academic guidance.

5. Educational level of parents.

6. Family’s educational background.

C. Other Factors

7. Not interested; does not study much.

8. Government’s policies and support.

9. Student’s background determines ICT study

at home.

Table 5.1: An in-depth open coding analysis example captured from the audio

recordings (Li, 2014)

Category Concepts Coding Records of Teachers /

Captured Students

Technical Gap There is a Students’ Teacher B: “Once during

software computer my class, some of the

skills gap software skills students used Adobe

amongst determine Creative Media to create

students in their way of videos or

using what presenting movies, they did it in a

academic
type of ideas beautiful way with sound
and animation and it was
multimodal in their project well
elements to assignments. done. Others did not
That is, present their ideas in
present whether such a
complex way. Thus I
ideas. students can could
see the differences in
present more their
interactivity skills. Actually, we did not
 (full of visual specify any requirements

and sound for the mode of

presentation. If one has
effects) to draw the
the audience’s skills (using Creative

Media for example), they

attention or just can present their
use text and ideas in a beautiful and

figures (the wonderful way.”

basic
requirements of
a
demonstration)
which is
relatively
boring.

Student B: “ He would
Usage Gap in Using too Some students not
realize
Digital / Media much social spending spend more than four or
five hours on the
Tools media affects too much time computer
academic on ICT as he did not like playing

achievement. entertainment online games; because

spending too much time
affects on
academic
results. entertainment implied
spending less time on
study
and hence it would affect
his
academic achievements.”
 In addition to the table for inductive open code as presented above, tables for

axial coding from results of Chapter 4 will be shown in Appendix 1. Moreover, there

will be another form of code-based analysis in terms of a networked diagram which

will be presented in Appendix 2. Finally, a summarized matrix display of qualitative

coding from the students' and teachers’ interviews will be shown in Appendix 3.

From the data and evidence obtained, we found that there is a technology gap.

It could be related to the students’ technical skills acquired from different sources

such as at school or in the family (as shown in Appendix 3, there was a skill

difference amongst S.1 students when inputting Chinese characters). In addition, there

was also a usage gap between students since they spend most of their time in non-

academic pursuits such as playing games and chatting (see Appendix 3). However, the

students would only use digital media positively in doing homework projects. This

could lead to a different learning outcome. This will be discussed in more detail in

section 5.2 and suggestions will be provided in Chapter 6 to improve the present

situation.

To analyse the reasons for the gaps mentioned above, it was found that

socioeconomic factors and a family’s educational background were the two main

reasons that created the gaps. Indeed, the government’s inadequate provisions may

also constitute another barrier. Finally, students’ interests do play a significant role

since they perform better in the subjects in which they are more interested. All of the

above findings will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

5.2 Discussion on the Relations Between the Findings
and the Research Questions

In order to address the research questions, this study will provide academic

articles as well as experiences from the sampled schools.

RQ 1: What will be the digital tools used by students to present ideas in their

lessons after working using digital media; and why use such tools?

From the interviews in the previous section, this study found that, while not

included in the lower secondary school ICT curriculum (only elementary skills are

taught), some students had higher technical skills than others in using software like

“Adobe Creative Media” and could therefore apply these skills to creating video and

audio multimodal elements for class presentations (more advanced skills are taught

later in the senior curriculum). Being able to do so allows the lesson to be more

interactive and classmates will be more attentive. However, other students with lower

skills used PowerPoint as the main presentation tool which contains more text and

less visual / sound effects. This tells us that there is a technology gap as a result of the

school curriculum. Some students used “Adobe Creative Media” to present their ideas

because they were able to acquire the necessary technological knowledge outside of

school, while others depended solely on what they had learnt in class. Similar cases

apply to other areas of the technology gap as described previously in section 4.2

In addition to the technology gap, there is also another form of divide that

exists in the education system. As explained by Hardesty, McWilliams, and A. Plucker

(2014), schools are now changing and increasingly becoming a learning environment
full of technology; students and teachers have reliable access to the Internet, digital

tools such as laptops and tablets, as well as technology consultants to encourage the

integration of classroom activities with various technologies. It is a common practice

to use tools in supporting activities which are capital-enhancing and related to the

preparation of test as well as research activities to replace library (Hardesty,

McWilliams & A. Plucker, 2014). User-generated content is always blocked by school

servers which means students cannot access sites to create content or participate on

social media (Ahn, Bivona & DiScala, 2011; Jansen, 2010). These blocks are also

often paired with restricted access to media creation software, and applications for

circulating and creating creative content (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). For

example, although tablets like iPads are often used to assist teaching students when

creating and sharing multimedia projects, which involve multimodal elements such as

audio, images, and video along with written text (Ostashewski & Reid, 2012), it is a

common practice to support these with traditional academic content. Murray and

Olcese (2011) studied 315 iPad applications that focused on education and found that

most of them were designed for students to use them passively when consuming

academic content; only 15, or just under 5%, supported collaboration and promoted

twenty-first century skills.

Hence, teachers have little room to help learners develop the skills and cultural

competencies, or have the confidence to try and negotiate collaborative knowledge

sharing and problem-solving activities that increasingly describe success in digitally

networked study and workplace contexts (Hardesty, McWilliams & Plucker, 2014).

Therefore, a new excellence gap exists and cannot be determined by present

standardized tests. The gap in which one tries to access and support studying using
digital media technologies (Hardesty, McWilliams & Plucker, 2014). This gap can

increase its power as it meets (in many ways) with the widening gap in classic

academic success (Hardesty, McWilliams & Plucker, 2014).

In order to improve and narrow the gap, one can employ several means

including physical investment. For example, one can improve the educational

environment through learning interactively which is based on the policy of reducing

the size of the class (Yousef, 2008). This encourages a shift from a teaching-based

approach to a student-based approach (Becker, 1997).

RQ 2: Why is there a gap between such students’ behaviour in using digital

tools during the class and with online content sharing; and how does it affect their

learning?

There is a technology gap mainly due to the students’ socioeconomic and

educational backgrounds. As discovered from the interviews, most ICT or new media

products such as iPads and smart phones cost a few thousand dollars. So unless the

student's socioeconomic background is good, they might not be able to afford such

types of products. Moreover, the average educational level of students’ parents is only

secondary school. As a result, they cannot provide that much assistance when their

children need academic help. Students will therefore approach their subject teacher

instead of their parents if they require academic assistance. According to the results of

the interviews, the parents did not have the technical skills to use programs like

Adobe Creative Media to help their children create content or present ideas with

animation or sound effects. Students could only acquire such skills through their

teachers, schools, or from other sources. Moreover, without the guidance of the
parents, students would likely use new media or digital tools for non-academic

purposes. Without restriction on the use of digital tools by the parents, students will

naturally prefer to use these tools for leisure rather than academic purposes.

According to Hargittai and Walejko (2008), the creation of online content is

definitely connected with the parents’ level of education. Students perform worse if

they come from disadvantaged socioeconomic environments compared to more

advantaged students (Conger et al., 1997; Haveman and Wolfe, 1995; Wilson, 1987).

The reason for such a phenomenon was explained by Bratti et al. (2007) who showed

that differences in terms of economic structures, leisure, type of institution, and the

characteristics (family and social) of the individual students were to blame for the

gap.

RQ 3: How do we enhance the participatory culture of students for “positive and

quality usage” (Yuen et al., 2014, p. 13) in terms of peer influence, teachers and

parental guidance?

Participatory culture can be enhanced through the integration of ICT in

teaching and learning. In order to teach in depth and solve the associated problems of

participatory culture, i.e. the participation gap, transparency problems, and ethical

challenges, teachers have to focus on the skills that help students meaningfully and

responsibly dedicate themselves to those online open spaces. Doing so will provide

them with the necessary digital capital for participating successful in 21st Century life

(Poore, 2013). Therefore one needs to “rethink literacy” and develop the participatory

skills amongst our students to encourage play, experimentation, improvisation,

performance, multitasking, creative appropriation, modelling of real-world processes,

networking, judgment, negotiation, and trans-media navigation (Jenkins, 2006, p.4).

In fact, these skills are nearly all social skills – they are multimodal and not similar to

traditional literacy and numeracy skills (Poore, 2013). Thus, the teacher’s role in this

participatory environment has changed to: facilitating knowledge discovery,

stimulating the community, demanding essential critique, encouraging networked

collaboration, inspiring new experiments, promoting creativity, solving model

problems, and advancing respect (Poore, 2013).

“For the role of parents in participatory culture, since the first five or six years

of a child’s life are formative for literacy and social skills, and parents can play an

important part in helping children acquire the most basic versions of the skills we

have described here. Throughout children’s lives, parents play important roles in

helping them make meaningful choices in their use of media and in helping them

anticipate the consequences of the choices they make” (Jenkins, 2009, p.114). ICT or

new media, especially the internet, can enable the widespread sharing of valuable

resources in both traditional and interactive forms, affording the means of

collaborative learning distributed over time and location (Jewitt et al., 2010; Pessey et

al., 2004). This study found that students liked to share notes and assignment answers

through WhatsApp groups. They also preferred to do project assignments together

through collaborative discussions using social media as described earlier in section

4.2.

Peer interactions can be positively promoted in participatory culture amongst

students through the social use and design of a class website where both teachers and

students are content users and producers; by encouraging communication between

other schools and classes as well as families; and through creating a virtual space and

using it as a “town square” in the classroom where students can meet, talk, exchange
necessary information, and experiences. Another example is to design and manage

educational applications such as forums, blogs, and wikis to organize content (video,

text and images) for students to express and represent their ideas and to reorganize

content produced by others according to the class itself (Costabile & Spears, 2012).

All of the above can “solicit active participation and collaboration that is respectful of

the individual” (Costabile & Spears, 2012, p.47).

Certainly, there are critics to Jenkins’ proposed participatory culture and skills.

According to Fuchs (2011), Jenkins overlooked features of participatory democracy.

That is so say, he did not take into account the problems of who owned the platforms,

profits, collective decision-making, class, or the benefits obtained from the

distribution of materials. Large companies like Facebook and Google always own the

platform and mediate the cultural expressions of the users. Both the paid employees

and the users are excluded from economic decision-making. In addition, Jenkins’

proposed 12 skills highlight that his understanding of culture was reductionist and

could lead to the disregarding of contemporary culture’s political economy.

Based on the above criticism, it would not be good to implement participatory

culture in schools under Jenkins’ idea. To improve the situation it is important to

strengthen the intranet in schools. For example, one could introduce into secondary

schools, self-learning or collaborative networks similar to some universities learning

modules. Hence, students could share ideas and content. In practice, according to

Dewey’s (1956) thoughts on a learner-centred curriculum, through a cycle of critical

inquiry, students can benefit where teachers encourage discussions and reflections.

Students could get the answers to questions or things they wondered about

(Alvermann, 2010). Therefore students, parents, and educators could all participate in
the decision-making process and problems mentioned by the critics might get be

solved.

5.3 A Framework Showing the Reasons for the Digital

Divide in Hong Kong Secondary Schools

4. The interview results showed that there was a technology and usage gap in

digital / media tools that accounted for the difference in learning outcomes. The

reasons for the gaps were:

Resources: Since most digital / media tools are expensive products, the

underprivileged cannot afford them. Certainly, the interviewed students in this study

had one to two computers at home, but still did not get the latest releases of digital

items such as iPads as soon as they became available on the market. In addition,

digital tools such as video cameras were not common amongst them. They could not

afford them because they had low socioeconomic status, poor living environments,

and bad economic backgrounds. In other words, their parents could only earn enough

for basic living requirements and not for other leisure expenditure such as on digital

products. Hence, there was an access gap.

Academic: In most cases, the interviewed students could only turn to their subject

teachers for academic help as their parents’ average educational level was only

secondary school (some were even as low as primary school). As a result they could

only receive a small amount of help from their parents. The family’s educational

background was also another factor. If a student has older brothers or sisters, then
they can provide assistance. All of the above constitute reasons for the skills gap

amongst students. In addition, because the parents had a low education level, they

could provide little or no restriction to the use of computers or media tools, and thus

students were more likely to use digital / media tools for leisure. This created another

usage gap that resulted in a difference of learning outcomes. Another factor is subject

matter. Students might also pay particular attention in fields where they are more

interested. They concentrate less if the subject being taught is not of interest and

therefore a difference in learning outcome results. Government policies and support

are important as they can fully subsidize the students an allow them to purchase

digital products in order to close the gap. Finally, the students’ background also

determines the gap, such as the economic and educational level of his / her family.

A framework (Figure 4) has been built that shows the reasons for the

technology and usage gaps in digital / media tools which then leads to the different

learning outcomes.
Chapter Six: Conclusion and
Implications
This chapter provides a conclusion to the thesis and suggests possible policy

implications for the research. Section 6.1 deals with the conclusions of the study.

Section 6.2 will expand upon the policy implications and shall review them from two

perspectives, the theory and the practice, with detailed discussions on each. Section

6.3 will focus on the contributions that this thesis has made to the public, and section

6.4. discusses the limitations of the study. The final part, section 6.5, suggests possible

areas of future research.

6.1 Conclusions

It is a common phenomenon that students use social media to discuss and

upload relevant digital work onto the Internet. After determining their usage

behaviour for presentations, this study found that there is a technology gap amongst

students. It was also found that there was such a usage gap between students that the

excessive use of digital products in leisure activities may have resulted in learning

differences or negative effects on academic achievements. From the interviews, the

study inductively developed a framework around the reasons for the technology and

usage gaps; these were classified as resource-based, academic-based, and other

factors. To bridge these gaps, this study proposes several policies in both theory and

practice. Besides these policies (that will be mentioned in the following section), this

study suggests a few strategies for providing quality education (described in further

detail in Section 6.2). In fact, all of the policies and strategies aim to encourage

“positive and quality usage of the technologies” (Yuen, 2014) and hence aim to bridge

what is referred to as the digital divide or equity.

6.2 Policy Implications

There are warnings from experts such as Winner (1986), who stated that there

would be powerful players who would have the advantage of being able to access

ICT. In other words, those with high Social Economic Status (SES) and who are well

educated will benefit most from the use of ICT. Therefore it is important to suggest

feasible policies for those students who are at the boundaries of society (Yuen et al.,

2014). This study recommends three major policy implications to solve the problems

in accordance with our framework developed on grounded theory. These are:

Resources: This concerns marginalized students and their accessibility to and use of

the most updated digital products for learning (as was shown from the interviews, a

small number of students still do not have smart phones). In theory, direct subsidy or

funding should be provided to these students to allow them to purchase products such

as personal computers (Wong Y.C. et al., 2007). In practice, there are plans like Web

Organic and ILearn at Home in Hong Kong which provide free personal computers,

low price broadband, and additional accessories. However, is there any room for

further improvements such as direct funding for updated digital products like smart

phones and tablets?

Academic: This affects the students’ technical skills used for studying. Theoretically,

there should be a scheme to improve students’ knowledge of technology and thus help

solve the technical gap. In practice, well-planned training courses, under the subsidy

of the government, provided by schools or welfare organizations, should be held for

these students. Therby allowing them to apply what they have learnt to their studies

(Wong Y.C. et al., 2007). Similarly, “education programmes should also provide help
 to parents so they gain a better understanding of information literacy and the impact

of new technologies on their children” (Yuen et al., 2014, p.13). This may help to

solve part of the problem in “positive and quality usage of technologies” (Yuen et al.,

2014, p.13), i.e. increase the use of technologies for academic purposes amongst

students and decrease the proportion of its use in leisure under the parents’ guidance.

“It is the complex set of family practices, which includes the family’s socioeconomic

status, parents’ aspirations, parents’ education levels, and parenting styles, that leads

to why and how ICT is used in the home and hence its outcomes. Parents play a

crucial role in forming home culture and transmitting cultural influence to the next

generation” (Yuen & Pak, 2012, p.4). Hence, by educating parents, on can change

their views on using ICT as well as influencing and monitoring the students

themselves.

Other factors: This involves the students’ interest and the government’s present

policies. To tackle the problem of taste or preference in the usage of digital tools, in

principle, one can provide incentives for students to change and to promote healthy,

quality usage. In reality, one can provide suitable and positive reinforcement for

students in order to encourage them to use technologies wisely1.

As discovered in the interviews, some students understand that excessive use

of ICT affects their academic achievements. Teachers can help to emphasize this fact

and warn students against the dangers. Regarding the problem concerning the

government’s present policies, more research needs to be done to see what further

actions are required to improve the situation. As shown in the interviews, one of the

1 http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-behaviorism.html
teacher's commented that government policy was not comprehensive and needed

further improvement.

In order to implement the above policies, five groups of people need to work

together. These are the IT experts and academicians, students, parents, teachers, the

schools, and the authorities (The following are taken from Mohamad et. al, 2014).

IT experts and academicians support the hardware and software by working with the

authorities. Hence the performance of hardware and software can be improved in

order to facilitate their full utilization for learning purposes amongst students.

5. There should be a strong motivation and intention between students to use

ICT for academic learning. In fact, they should be made aware of the

advantages of using ICT in doing homework, searching for extra information

and exercises, as well as participating in interactive activities related to

academic purposes.

Parents should provide full support and guidance to their children about the wise

usage of ICT. Besides delivering affordable Internet access at home, parents should

control and supervise its use so that students will not misuse the Internet.

Finally, schools and teachers should keep a closer eye on students’ use of ICT.

Schools should arrange workshops or seminars promoting educational technology.

The aim would be to explore the advantages of using ICT in learning to both teachers

and students. Furthermore, teachers should motivate students to use ICT as a medium

for learning on the Internet. They should show students the correct way to search the

Internet for information on suitable academic web sites.

 This study agrees that all five groups have their own positions in the policy

implementation of bridging the gaps. Hence, ICT learning should be promoted and a

more learner-centred method of teaching could be managed.

6.3 Study Contributions

This study attempted to answer the following research questions:

Q1: What were the digital tools used by students to present their ideas in the

classroom after using digital media; and why did they use such tools?

Q2: Why was there a gap in the students’ behaviour when using digital tools during

class and for online content sharing; and how did this affect their learning?

Q3: How best was it to enhance the participatory culture of students for “positive and

quality usage” (Yuen et al., 2014, p.13) in terms of peer influence, teachers, and

parental guidance?

The answers to the above questions were in addition to the technical and usage gaps.

There is a new exmobileence gap in schools. This is because instead of supporting

collaboration and promoting 21st Century skills, schools are using their IT

infrastructures to allow students to passively consume academic content (Hardesty,

McWilliams & Plucker A., 2014). Furthermore, the socioeconomic and educational

levels of the students’ families are two main factors that affect their online content

creation behaviour (Hargittai & Walejko, 2008). In other words, disadvantaged

students usually perform worse than advantaged students (Conger et al., 1997;
Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Wilson, 1987). Finally, there can be class forums or blogs

on which students can share their ideas and enhance the academic participatory

culture (Costabile & Spears, 2012). At the same time, a high quality of education can

be provided in schools through the implementation of the following strategies

(adopted from Bilignaut A.S., 2010):

1. Plan for ICT use: The formation of an ICT usage plan in schools for different areas

such as learning, teaching, and management. The requirements of this plan must

be applied and aligned with the school’s own general plan of improvement.

2. Reduction of the digital gap and sustainability: This concerns a variety of ICT

infrastructure provisions and the management plan of ICT infrastructure

development in each school.

3. Development of digital competencies: This helps all involved participants such as

student teachers, teachers, and students develop a variety of digital

competencies. By employing an interactive test, one can evaluate these

competencies through several action lines.

4. Digital educational resources usage plan: In order to deliver the curriculum from a

set of digital educational resources, one should have a plan as well as a good

implementation policy to ensure the accessibility to, or availability of, providing

such resources for schools.

6.4 Limitations to the Research

 Although by applying grounded theory to the previous findings, this study

discovered a framework that described the reasons for the technology and usage gaps

that caused the differences in learning. There are still some limitations to the study

and the results. Firstly, “The process of abstracting and encompassing concepts is not

an easy task” (Hussein M.E. et al., 2014, p.5). During the coding process, one may

lose sight of the fact that the task is to determine themes and ideas that arise from the

interview data (Hussein M.E. et al., 2014). As the “process of data collection is

controlled by the emerging theory” (Glaser, 1978, p. 36), one should begin sampling

with purpose and revert to theoretical sampling (Hussein M.E., 2014). It is dangerous

to produce a theory without conceptual depth (Benoliel, 1996). In this research, the

main data source comes from interviews and observations in schools. But as in

Glaser's view (1992), it would be better to add other sources for analysis. Finally,

according to Hussein M.E. (2014), there are threats to the generalizability or external

validity when using grounded theory since it is a qualitative method of inquiry that

also constitutes a limitation.

6.5 Future Research

In the future, more emphasis should be placed on studying the cultural, social,

and contextual features of the students’ participation in digital media, as well as

investigate the reasons for being excluded (Yuen, 2014). For example, the problem of

cyber-bullying, addiction amongst students in digital media etc. should be placed on

the list of study. All of these require a great deal of further exploration in order to
have a more in-depth understanding of the equity problems and the corresponding

solutions.
References:
Ahn, J., Bivona, L. K., & DiScala, J. (2011). Social media access in K-12 schools:
Intractable policy controversies in an evolving world. Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1–10.

Ala-Mutka, K. (2011) Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual

Understanding, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies, Technical Note: JRC 67075, [online] Available at:
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id_4699

Attewell, P. (2001). Comment: The First and Second Digital Divides. Sociology of
Education, 74(3), 252-259. doi: 10.2307/2673277

Alvermann, D.E. (2010). Adolescents’ Online Literacy. Peter Lang Publishing Inc,
New York

Barron & S. J. Derry. (Eds). Video research in the learning sciences. (pp.1-37)
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bawden, D. (2008) ‘Origins and concepts of digital literacy’, in Digital Literacy:

Concepts, Policies and Practices, eds. C. Lankshear & M. Knobel, Peter Lang, New
York, pp. 17_32.

Becker, W. E. (1997). “Teaching Economics to Undergraduates”. Journal of

Economic Literature. Vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1347-73.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age (pp. xiii, 526 p.).
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lb.polyu.edu.hk/login?url=http://www.netLibrary.com/
urlapi.as
p?action=summary&v=1&bookid=129657

Blignaut Seugnet A., Hinostroza Enrique J., Christo J. Els, Mario Brun (2010). ICT in
education policy and practice in developing countries: South Africa and Chile
compared through SITES 2006, journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locatecompedu

Boelje, Hennie (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research, SAGE Publication Inc,

London.

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005).
Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195 – 207.

Bratti, M.; Checchi, D.; Filippin, A. (2007). “Territorial Differences in Italian

Students’ Mathematical Competencies: Evidence from PISA 2003”. IZA Discussion
Paper. No. 2603. February. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Buckingham, D. (2006) Defining Digital Literacy – What do young people need to

know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(4), 263 – 76

Carroll, J., & Cameron, D. (2008). Drama, digital pretext and social media. The
Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance 14(2).
Christudason, A. (2003). Peer Learning http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/success/s137.htm

Clark, C., & Gorski, P. (2002). Multicultural Education and the Digital Divide: Focus
on Socioeconomic Class Background. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 25–36,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Clark, Donald. (2013) http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/9-reasons-why-

i-am-not-socia l.html

Conger, R. D.; Conger, K. J.; Elder, G. H. (1997). “Family Economic Hardship and
Adolescent Adjustment: Mediating and Moderating Processes”. In: g. duncan; j.
brooks-gunn (ed). Consequences of Growing up Poor. New York: The Russell Sage
Foundation.

Costabile Angela and Spears Barbara A. (2012). The Impact of Technology on

Relationships in Educational Settings. Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.

London: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research : an introduction (2nd ed.).
London: SAGE.

Dewey, J (1956). The child and the curriculum/The school and society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (2004[1916]) Democracy and Education. Mineola, N.Y:Dover

DiBello, L. C. (2005). Are we addressing the digital divide? Issues, access, and real
commitment. Childhood Education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education.

Elliott, Jane (2005). Using Narrative in Social Research. Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. London: Sage.

Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in
education (6th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fuchs, C (2011). Against Henry Jenkins. Remarks on Henry Jenkins’ ICA Talk
“Spreadable Media”. http://fuchs.uti.at/5

Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of

Research on Education, 32(1), 241-267.

Garland, V. E., & Wotton, S.E. (2002). BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN
PUBLIC SCHOOLS. J. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, Vol. 30(2)
115-123.
Gast, David L. (2010). Single Subject Research Methodology in Behavioural Science,
p.10 – 11(First published) Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Gee, J. P. (2010). New digital media and learning as an emerging area and "worked
examples" as one way forward. The John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation
reports on digital media and learning. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press,.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in methodology of grounded

theory. San Francisco, CA: University of California Press.

Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill

Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Goldman, R. P., B. Barron & Derry, S.J. (2007). Video representations and the
perspectivity framework: Epistemology, ethnography, evaluation, and ethnics. Video
research in the learning sciences, 37.

Graham, Bill (2000) Case Study Research Methods. London. Continuum.

Grant, L. (2007). Learning to be part of the knowledge economy: digital divides and
media literacy. http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/
discussi on-papers/Discussion-Paper816.

Hardesty Jacob, McWilliams Jenna, Plucker Jonathan A. (2014). Exmobileence gaps:

what are they, why they are bad, and how smart contexts can address them… or make
them worse, High Ability Studies 25:1, 71-80, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2014.907646
Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). THE PARTICIPATION DIVIDE: Content

creation and sharing in the digital age1. Information, Communication & Society,
11(2), 239-256. doi: 10.1080/13691180801946150

Harris, M. J. (2010). IMPACTFUL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES OF ONE-

TO-ONE STUDENT LAPTOP PROGRAMS IN LOW SOCIOECONOMIC
SCHOOLS.
Haveman, R.; Wolfe, B. (1995). “The Determinants of Children’s Attainments: A
Review of Methods and Findings”. Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 33, no. 4, pp,
1829-1878. American Economic Association.

Hobbs, R. J., A. (2009). The Past, Present, and Future of Media Literacy Education.
Media Literacy Education, 11.

Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the
digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in
Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648-1663. doi: 10.1016/
j.compedu.2008.04.002

Hussein Mohamed El, Hirst Sandra, Salyers Vince, and Osuji Joseph (2014). Using
Grounded Theory as a Method of Inquiry: Advantages and Disadvantages. The
Qualitative Report 2014 Volume 19, How To Article 13, 1-15 www.nova.edu/ssss/
QR/QR19/el-hussein13.pdf

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture : media

education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2713.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture : media
education for the 21st century. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press https://
mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/
9780262513623_Confronting_the_Challenges.pdf. MIT Press

Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms. Review of

Research in Education, 32(1), 241-267. doi: 10.3102/0091732x07310586

Johnson Burke and Christensen Larry (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative,

Qualitative and Mixed Approaches (Forth Edition), London: SAGE.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2009 [1991], p50). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral
participation. Learning in doing. Cambridge ; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University
Press,.
Livingstone, Sonia (2012) Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education.
Oxford review of education, 38 (1). pp. 9-24. ISSN 0305-4985

Li, Xiaolei (2014). Obstacles of using tablet computers as a learning tool in primary
schools, University of Hong Kong. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/206571

Magnifico, A. M. (2007). Science literacy and the internet? MacArthur Digital Media
and-Learning.
http://spotlight.macfound.org/main/entry/
magnifico_science_literacy_and_the_internet/(accessed, May 1, 2009).

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education

(2nd ed. ed.). San Francisco, Calif. :: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2008. http://www.merriam-webster.com

Miles Matthew B. and Huberman A. Michael (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis

(2ndEdition) SAGE Publications.

Monroe, B. J. (2004). Crossing the digital divide : race, writing, and technology in the
classroom. Language and literacy series. New York ;: Teachers College Press,.

Moore, J. L., Laffey, J.M., Espinosa, L.M. & Lodree, A.W. (2002). Bridging the
Digital Divide for At-Risk Students: Lessons Learned. TechTrends: Linking Research
and Practice to Improve Learning, 46(2), 5-9.

Mohamad, N.A. & Razak, N.A. (2014). The Use of 1Malaysia Netbook in English
Language Learning, Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 118 ( 2014 ) 302 –
309.

Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or
not? Tech-Trends, 55, 42–48.

NCCA (2007) ICT Framework: A Structured Approach to ICT in Curriculum and

Assessment. Revised Framework, [online] Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/en/
Publications/Reports/ICT_
Framework_A_structured_approach_to_ICT_in_Curriculum_and_Assessment_-_Rev
ised_framework.pdf
Nyboe,
L., &
Drotne
r, K.
(2008)
Identit
y,
aesthet
ics and
digital
narrati
on, in:
K.
Lundb
y (Ed)
Mediat
ized
stories
(New
York,
Peter
Lang),
161-17
6.

Ostash
ewski,
N., &
Reid,
D.
(2012).
Digital
Storyte
lling
on the
iPad:
Apps,
activiti
es, and
process
es for
success
ful
21st
century
story
creatio
ns.
Paper
present
ed at
the
World
Confer
ence
on
Educat
ional
Multi
media,
Hyper
media
and
Teleco
mmuni
cations
.

Passey,
D.,
Rogers
, C.,
with
Machel
l, J., &
McHu
gh, G.
(2004)
The
motivat
ional
effect
of ICT
on
pupils
(Londo
n,
Depart
ment
for
Educat
ion and
Skills).

Poore,
M.
(2013).
Using
social
media
in the
classro
om : a
best
practic
e
guide.
Los
Angele
s,
Calif. ;
Londo
n:
SAGE

Snyder
, I., &
Bulfin,
S.
(2007).
Digital
Literac
y:
What it
Means
for
Arts
Educat
ion. In
L.
Bresler
(Ed.),
Interna
tional
handbo
ok of
researc
h in
arts
educati
on
(Vol.
16, pp.
1297-1
310):
Spring
er
Netherl
ands.

Stake,
R. E.
(1981).
Case
Study
Metho
dology,
in
Welsh,
W.W.
(Ed)Ca
se
Study
Metho
dology
in
Educat
ional
Evalua
tion.
Minnes
ota
researc
h and
evaluat
ion
centre.

Stake,
R. E.
(1995).
The art
of case
study
researc
h.
Thousa
nd
Oaks,
CA:
Sage

Strauss
, A.
(1987).
Qualita
tive
analysi
s for
social
scientis
ts.
New
York:
Cambri
dge
Univer
sity
Press.

Subra
mony,
D. P.
(2007).
Unders
tanding
the
comple
x
dimens
ions of
the
Digital
Divide:
Lesson
s
learned
in the
Alaska
n
Arctic.
JOUR
NAL
OF
NEGR
O
EDUC
ATION
.

Sutton,
R. E.
(1991,
p.494).
Equity
and
Compu
ters in
the
School
s: A
Decade
of
Resear
ch.
Swain,
C. P.,
T.
(2002).
Educat
ors and
Techno
logy
Standa
rds:
Influen
cing
the
Digital
Divide.
Journa
l of
Resear
ch on
Compu
ting in
Educat
ion,
34(3),.

Valade
z, J. R.,
&
Duran,
R.
(2007).
Redefi
ning
the
Digital
Divide:
Beyon
d
Access
to
Compu
ters
and the
Interne
t. High
School
Journa
l,
90(3),
31-44.
Warsch
auer,
M.
(2003).
Social
capital
and
access.
Univer
sal
Access
in the
Inform
ation
Society
, 2(4),
315-33
0. doi:
10.100
7/
s10209
-002-0
040-8

Warsch
auer,
M., &
Matuc
hniak,
T.
(2010).
New
technol
ogy
and
digital
worlds:
Analyz
ing
eviden
ce of
equity
in
access,
use,
and
outcom
es.
Revie
w of
Resear
ch in
Educat
ion,
34,
179–
225.

Whiteh
ead, A.
N.
(1967
[1929].
p.1).
The
aims of
educati
on and
other
essays.
New
York: Free Press,.

Williams, B. T., & Zenger, A. A. (2007). Popular culture and representations of

literacy. New York: Routledge.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

Winner, L. (1986). The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High
Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolcott, H.F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M.D. Le Compte, W.L.

Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp.
36). New York: Academic Press.

Wong, Y. C., Law, C. K., Fung, J. Y. C., & Lee, V, W. P. (2010). Digital divide and
social inclusion: Policy challenge for social development in Hong Kong and South
Korea. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 3(1), 34-52.

Wong, Y. C., Fung, J. Y. C., Law, C. K., & Lam, J. C. Y., & Lee, V. (2009). Tackling the
digital divide. British Journal of Social Work, 39 (4), 754–767. (Impact factor: 1.139)

Yin, R. K. (2003a). Applications of case study research (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks ::
Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2003b). Case study research : design and methods (3rd ed. ed.). Thousand
Oaks :: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2004). The Case Study Anthology. London: Sage.

Yin, Robert. (1984／1994／2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.

Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Youssef Adel Ben, Dahmani Mounir (2008). The Impact of ICT on Student
Performance in Higher Education: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects and Organisational
Change. Monograph “The Economics of E-learning”.

Yuen, A.H.K., Law, N., Lee, M. W., & Lee, Y. (2010). The changing Face of Education
in Hong Kong. Transition into the 21st century. Published by Centre for Information
Technology in Education (CITE), Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.

Yu, M., & Yuen, A.H.K. & Pak, J. (2012). Students’ Computer Use At Home: A Study
On Family Environment And Parental Influence. Research and Practice in Technology
Enhanced Learning, 7(1), http://apsce.net/RPTEL_Purpose_and_Scope.aspx

Yuen A.H.K, Lau W.F., Park. J, Wang Dan, (2012). The Digital Divide in Education:
An Experiential Understanding – Research Manual.

Yuen A.H.K, & Park. J, (2012). The Digital Divide in Education and Students’ Home
Use of ICT. International Conference, The Future of Education, 2nd Edition.
Yuen A.H.K., Lau W.F., Park. J, Lau K.K. & Chan, K.M. (2014). Home Computing and
Digital Equity in Education: A Hong Kong Story, American Educational Research
Association (AERA) 2014 Annual meeting. 3-7 April 2014, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Appendix 1: Axial Coding Tables
Table 6: Category – Technical Gaps in Using Digital
Media Amongst Students

Main Category

Property Dimensions

High-- X---------
Involvement -- ------ Low

Subcategory: Computer Software Skills

Property Dimensions

High------
Skill Levels -------- X----- Low

Subcategory: Hardware Access

Property Dimensions

High-----
Chance of Access -------- X------- Low

Subcategory: Information Literacy

Property Dimensions

X—
High--------
Security Awareness ---------- Low
Table 7: Category for Usage Gaps

Main Category

Property Dimensions

High- X--------------
Involvement -- -- Low

Subcategory: Teacher’s
Pedagogy

Property Dimensions

Changes in Using Digital Media High-------

----------- X--- Low

Subcategory: Contribution of Using Digital / Media Tools

Property Dimensions

High- X--------------
Increase in Efficiency - ------ Low

Subcategory: Leisure

Property Dimensions

High-
Participation X---------------------- Low

Subcategory: Controversies of Using Digital / Media Tools

Property Dimensions

High-
Poor Academic Effects X---------------------- Low
Table 8: Category: Causes of the Technical and Usage
Gaps

Main Category

Property Dimensions

High-- X----------------
Number of Arguments --- -- Low

Subcategory: Resources related

Property Dimensions

High-- X----------------
Rank of Importance - ---- Low

Subcategory: Academic related

Property Dimensions

High-- X----------------
Level of Significance --- -- Low

Subcategory:
Others

Property Dimensions

High-------
Efficiency of Government --------- X------- Low

Involvement
Appendix 2: Networked
Diagram From Code-Based
Analysis
The following network diagram shows the relations between
using digital tools and the gaps that are created.
Appendix 3: A Summarized Matrix
Display of Qualitative Coding From the
Students' and Teachers’ Interviews
Technical Reasons for
Gap Usage Gap Gaps

1. Teacher A: “There is a 1. Student B: “The main role

gap in computer of the computer is to act as 1. Teacher B: “For instance,
technical an you buy a mini-iPad for
entertainment tool and the three thousand dollars but
skills amongst students.” other function is for doing Apple Air may be six
1.1: Ways of class thousand dollars. All of these
presentation: homework assignments.” need money. If you do not
have a strong
socioeconomic background,
- PowerPoint software Leisure includes: you will be
- Creative Media creates
video or audio. - Watching online videos affected.”
1.2: Chinese word typing 2. Another factor is students’
speed for S.1 students: - Listening to music living environments.
As fast as 60 words per Richer: Positive attitude
minute. - Online chatting (girls) towards using new media.
- Does not know how to
divide a Chinese Poorer: Not ready for using
character. - Playing games (boys) in and outside of school.
1.3: Still lots of
PowerPoint functions 2. Controversies of using 3. A policy may require 10
that the digital / media tools elements to implement
student (she) does not Student C: He would not but the government only
know. spend more than four or five provides 6; the rest need to
2. Teacher doesn't
require students to use hours on the computer as he be taken care of by others
ICT / new does not like playing and become an economic
media tools for
homework due to online games. Spending too
difficulties in much time on barrier.
entertainment results in 4. A student: “There is no
spending less time studying one who can provide
accessing hardware: which academic
2.1: There are still some
students who do not will affect his academic
have achievements. guidance for me. ”
 Technical Reason for
Gap Usage Gap Gap

Student D: As far as she

smart phones and cannot knows, there are students 5. The average educational
use Whatsapp. who level of interviewed
2.2: The procedure to use WhatsApp continuously. students’ parents is at
borrow video recorders is It may become a hindrance secondary level. This
troublesome so students
cannot access them indicates they cannot
easily to their studies. provide much help to
3. Students show little
concern about their children when they
information 3. Teacher’s pedagogy faced academic problems.
- Student E: “The teacher
likes to use PowerPoint
literacy: software 6. Family’ s education level:
3.1: Students believe and to check the answers - A higher level means more
experts will proofread with it.” resources are available and
content in WiKi and they - Chinese Language teachers more care is provided
trust the information will let students watch growing up.
academic related videos as - A lower level means
posted. teaching material during his parents need to work longer
3.2: The key to avoiding
cyber bullying is hours with less resources
education / her class. and can provide less care.
- Teacher C: “In the past, 7. Teacher C: “If educators
through ethics. teachers wrote out the model take a deeper look,
3.3: Teachers advise answer for students.
students to use the However, nowadays, as they will see a difference
Internet for Android between present day
and iOS have become more
academic purposes not popular, they can send young students and past
for entertainment. answers in PDF generations. When our
3.4 Students like to use
the same set of
passwords which result format. Then students can youth has an interest in a
in security problems. form groups and share particular subject, like
video recording and editing,
files amongst themselves.” they learn very fast.
On the other hand, they will
4. Contributions of using not study as much if they are
digital / media tools not interested.”
- Teacher A: “ When we do a
table of contents, if you
know how to use MS Word, 8. The government’s policies
you can just update it by and support are
clicking a button and the job insufficient and not to the
can be done easily if point.
Technical Reasons for
Gap Usage Gap Gaps

9. Students’ family
backgrounds determine
you have studied ICT.” whether the
- It will give a clear view of students can use ICT and
what they are learning. new media to study at
Students will know more
about the teaching materials. home.
The flow of teaching is better
than just using chalk and a
blackboard.
- By introducing web
searches, students can find
related
resources, backgrounds of
theories, and examples of
calculus that can help in
clarification.
- Student F: “Most probably,
when my classmates and I
do projects, we will finish
different parts independently
at home, then use Facebook
to exchange the
completed sections.”
Appendix 4: A sample of a Student’ s
Interview
I: Do you live with your Mum and Dad?

S: I just live with my Mum

I: What is her occupation?

S: Mum is in catering, she is a chef.

R. If you stay at home when she goes to work, does anyone take care of you?

S.No one.

I: What is the her education level?

S: Primary school.

I: Does your mother often take care of you? Or is there anybody else to take care of
you?

S: My older brother, but I am in secondary school so I can look after myself.

I: Do you have any other brothers or sisters? If so, how old are they and do they live
with you?

S: No. In my family there is only my brother, Mum and me.

R. Is your brother a student?

S.He is unemployed (laughs). He is a high school graduate. We live together.

I: Does your family have computers or technology products, such as iPads or tablets
at home? If so where are they usually located? Do you share them or are they
individually owned?

S: We have mobile phones, speakers, computers, an iPad, and smart phones. The
computers are individually owned. The iPad is shared. We have one laptop and two
desktop computers.

R. Are computers good and updated?

S.They are all worth between $1,000 and $3,000.

R. The basic requirement online is $3,000.

S.Online, computer games, and word processing are all good enough.

I. Is your computer connected online?

S.Yes.
I: Can you usually use this computer?

S: Yes.

I: Do you share the computer with your family? Do you have to ask your Mum’s
permission to use it and if so are there conditions?

S: No, I can use it anytime I like.

R. Does your mother sometimes tell you that you are not allowed to use it?

S.Sure, I am also quite self-disciplined. Lately, I have been using it only really for
study.

R. Do you play on your computer for entertainment?

S.No, I use my mobile phone for playing games, not computers.

I. How often do your use your home computer? Weekly?

R. Do you use your home computer daily or weekly?

S.Not daily. After going into form five, I rarely use it. I only use it to do projects and
search for information on the Internet. Using mobile phones is more convenient
because it is always on. For the computer, I have to turn it on.

I. What do you usually use the computer for?

R. For doing homework. I use the mobile phone for play.

S.Right, and to find information and do projects.

I. Do you like to use your computer in this way, and if so why?

S.Sorry, I do not know what you mean.

R. I mean, you don't have Internet access on the computer. Is the mobile phone is
more favourable?

S.I don't dislike computers, there are things that mobile phones are not capable of
doing, but computers are. For projects, the mobile phone screen is too small.
Computers are better for this.

R. If both the computer and the phone could do the same thing. Which would you
choose?

S.The mobile phone. Because I can carry it with me it is more convenient.

I. If you are at home doing homework or reviewing something and encounter

difficulties, will you ask your Mum for help?
S: No, no. I will ask my classmates. Mum is not well educated.

I: Do you tell your mother or brother about school life? About your friends for
example? Or about how you use a computer?

S: Rarely about school life. I will talk to my brother but my mother is not familiar
with information technology. She only knows the basic uses and not the more
complicated functions. I would tell my brother but not my Mum.
I: Does your mother discuss computer topics, such as how to differentiate online
information, online bullying, online dating, etc.? Can you give examples?

S: Rarely.

I: Which class are you in?

S: Form Five.

I: Do you think you study hard or not so much?

S: Relatively hard, because there are more subjects in Form Five I am a bit behind.

I: Have you participated in after-school tutoring? If so, where and what type?

S: Yes in English tutoring classes. School does not provide such types of classes.

I: Each day about how much time do you spend on your homework and for review?

S: If it is close to exam time and tests, probably about two or three hours. If it is not
exam time then about half an hour to an hour to refresh things I learnt that day.

S: Science subjects are my favourite. Calculus and Maths. I dislike Art.

I: Why is that?

S: Because I am more rational and not so emotional. I like definite answers Art does
not have definite answers.

I: Do you think your GPA is good or bad, and are you satisfied?

S: Quite satisfied yes, except in English. The other subjects are more satisfactory.

I: Have you participated in after-school or off-campus interest groups or activities? If

so please provide examples. Do you like to do that kind of thing? Do you have any
responsibilities at school? For example as a Hall Monitor and do you like taking on
that type of responsibility?

S: I do not participate in interest groups or activities. In prefect addition to learning

doing other things can also relax. There are others to learn in middle school.

I: Are there any computer classes at school? Do you like computer classes? Do you
think learning to use a computer is important and if so why?

S: No, there are only computer classes after Form Three. Only IEF lessons use
computers. When doing projects, we need computers. For Liberal Studies there are
one to two periods in a cycle to do IEF in the computer room.

I: Is there a system?

S: There is an e-class for homework, in the holidays we don't do online homework

much in Form Four or Five.

I: In the past, did you use them more?

S: Yes. There was more e-teaching in Form One to Three. E-teaching and online
homework are two different things.

I: Is there any e-teaching in the other three subjects? Do you like e-teaching? Do you
think e-learning important? If so why?

S: E-learning using PowerPoint, Excel, and Access. For English, Physics, Biology,
and other science classes we use it more. For Art the blackboard is used. For
homework we hand in paper work. Teachers use a computer for teaching. Pupils do
not use one computer per person because the school resources are relatively small.

I: Do you use computer at home and elsewhere outside of school? If so where?

S: No, I use the phone more.

I: Do teachers use computers or technology tools to support their teaching? If so, in

what subjects and how often are they used?

I: You are referring to whether teachers use information technology in the classroom?
In which particular subjects or is it in every one?

S: English, Liberal Studies, Physics, and Biology.

I: So more in Art and less in Chinese?

S: Correct. There is more explanation that uses the blackboard.

I: So for all explanation in these subjects there is less use of information technology?

I: Usually how does the teacher use these tools? For example with PPT, videos,
educational software, and online resources.

S: PowerPoint, Excel, Word, or using the Internet to search for information.

I: Do you think that these teaching tools help you learn? If so how? For example, does
it add interest, make it easier to understand, or increase participation and interaction?

S: It makes it more interesting.

I: How about the subjects that don't use computers?

S: For the advantages, it is clear to see what is being taught. For the disadvantages,
there is little focus on the teacher as we are mostly facing the computer. Which is
better, the teacher uses the computer to explain, and as a result we have better
communication. If we just look at the computer we have less direct communication
with the teacher even though we receive the information better.

I: Everyone has a computer and the teacher explains what to do? Or do you just listen
to the teacher?

S: I think listening is better.

I: So you don’t like the former.

S: Right.

I: Will you discuss homework after school with your classmates?

S: Rarely, I do it on my own.

I: Do your classmates use computers or other technology products at home?

S: Yes, two years ago but not now. For the last two years my classmates used mobile
phones, but starting this year computers have become a must.

I: Will you share your experience using the computer with your classmates? If so,
please give examples.

S: Yes, and ends up with more, you will communicate with them after watching
Youtube as well.

I: Do you think your computer knowledge and usage is comparable to your

classmates. Is there any difference and if so, why?

S: I rearely play computer games that I don’t like. This is probably because I have
now gone into senior high. My classmates play computer games and my number of
friends has decreased.

I: Do you think your classmates spend too much time on the computer? Do you
believe the difference in what you use the computer for will affect your learning? If
so, how?

S: Classmates who spend more time on e-products to play games have less time to
study. Usually this means theygo to bed later and their academic results suffer.

I: Compared to boys, is there any difference in the time spent on computers and the
knowledge of computers for girls? If so, why?

S: Not much. Girls don’t like playing computer games so they don’t talk much about
them.

I: They use Whatsapp to communicate. Correct?

S: Exactly.

I: What websites do you usually look at? Do you look for new sites you haven't look
at before and if so, what are they?

S: I usually go on Facebook, DCVIVA - a discussion forum on electronic products,

online shopping sites, and Yahoo news. If I find new sites I will see if there is any
useful information.

?: Do you trust the website links?

S: It depends on what they are. For the trustworthy links such as Yahoo news or other
mainstream sites I will happily browse them.
I: Are you happy to use computers? Do you think computers have helped you learn
new things or let you do more?

S: Yes I am happy to use them. Do you mean learn new things at school, or overall?

I: Overall.

S: Sure. If I am not free to listen to news reports, it’s easy to watch. For learning
purposes like looking up something in the dictionary, or for grammar there are many
resources. For things like proverbs, there are other useful sites.

I: Can you differentiate online information? And if so, how do you know?

S: If it is possible to distinguish the news. If it is for learning materials, I am not able

to distinguish the poor material.

I: Do you think using computers online is safe? And how can you ensure safety?

S: Do you mean other people will know the content I am looking at?

I: Yes, for example, personal privacy.

S: I am quite scared. I have friends who know how to break someone's personal
privacy settings. It is easy for them to steal other people’s personal data and mine too.
As a result I am aware not to show my personal information.

I: Are you afraid of seeing bad content online?

S: Actually, no I'm not. I know what sites are bad and deliberately do not visit them.

I: Which do you think is more safe to use mobile phones or computers?

S: Mobile phones. It is easier to use the wireless network. My friends have little
knowledge of wireless networking. If you use a computer wireless network with an IP,
it is easy to hack into personal data. Mobile phones are safer. Computers have been
around for a long time, and wireless can easily be hacked.

I: Do you think the time you spend on the computer is too much or too little? If so,
why? How do you usually manage your computer usage and keep it under control?

S: I spend little time on the computer, probably less than four or five hours a day
because I rarely play computer games. Because I am in Form Five, and I spend very
little time playing, I have very few subjects in common about which to talk with my
friends.

?: Do you think that if there are differences, will those who use the computer more get
better or worse academic results?

S: I think those who spend more time playing computer games get poorer results.
Those who spend more time on recreation get poorer results because the time to study
is less .Usually people who play computer games go to bed late so their results are
worse than others who go to bed earlier. more students score almost friends. With
multi-point performance in entertainment poor, less time warm book, usually playing
computer games played late, they seem relatively poor performance.

?: Do you think the time female students spend on computers is different?

S: There is not much of a difference but there is little bit. Female students use the
computer less because they do not play computer games as much. Female students
usually us Whatsapp to communicate.

?: Do you think the use of computer time and computer knowledge, and they are
compared, there is no difference? If so, why?

S: e qualitative left high school friends, playing computer slightly less. But other
students hit machine, so all feel less classmate friend left the topic slightly.

I: Do you think your students spend too much time on the computer? Do you feel the
difference in your computer in use will affect your learning? And if so what will be
the impact?

S: I think that would be the difference between left and drops. Because students use
electronic products more for amusement, so less time to warm book left. Usually hit a
good night playing computer to sleep, so the results will be relatively poor.

I: (girls) and male students compared to the use of computer time and computer
knowledge there is no difference? Why?

S: Will not big, but there were real system, female students really less drops. Well
because the female students and Italy beat machine, a machine good girl classmate
speaks topic slightly.

R. is usually whatsapp?

S.Ah.

I: What you usually go to the site? Have you ever found yourself some have not been
to the site? What is it about?

S: Facebook, DCVIVA a discussion forum on electronic products, there is nothing to

see on foot net buy Runner news facie news friends. If you find some nice site did not
go inside to look at the information appropriate to their own use ah.

(How do you deal with some link) to see which sites, garbled, who of course will not
have to go ah, saw an d have more confidence in the link, such as Runner news or
some large sites will point to go see.

I: Do you think the use of computers is not happy? Do you think the computer has not
helped you recognize something new? Or let you do more?

S: happy. Learn a new field refers to learning, or as a whole?

I: overall strategy.

S: There must be a whole, such as the Department of family survive ritual usually
busy listening to the news, the news is good and easy Yaodi friends. Learn it, such as
a dictionary to explain Ah, check grammar, they are all either more resources. All
child learn idioms are tied, a lot of online can be resolved into slightly.

I: Do you think you can differentiate the online information? How do you know?

S: If it is possible to distinguish the news I get. If it is learning on the relatively poor

resolution I could not see.

I: Do you think the use of computers and the Internet safe? How to ensure safety?

S: Do you mean people know or will not be?

I: for example, A leak of personal privacy.

S: are scared, because there are know to do it drops wild friends, feel great difficulty,
the Pirates of the profile. Install a firewall ah, more careful, because I know how to
get this information, so it would be more preventive, not casually reveal their
information out.

I: Do you think if the Internet scared Didao drops bad things?

S: Actually, I would not even, can tell that, not deliberately Qudi.
I: Do you think using a mobile phone and a computer which point you will feel at
ease?

S: use the mobile Internet security point is that if you say the degree of security, the
phone is to use the wireless network is figi directly to the vendor there, my friend
have little knowledge hack it drops figi. If you use a computer with Wi-Fi will have a
IP, relatively easy to hack into personal information, phone mobility, to a safe point.
The computers are left too resistant to it, the fruit drops wireless, Biren found that left
a lot intrusion methods.

I: Will you think of the time you spend on the computer too much or too little? Why?
How do you usually use a computer to control their own time?

S: I am less a day would be more than forty-five hours Well it less because I am
playing computer ah, probably on the Five qualitatively, after relatively few dozen
machines, like friends and less with the same topic. (Do you think that if there are
differences too, then have students with multi-point score will not be a good point or a
handicap?) I think the play on the computer and more students score almost friends.
With multi-point performance in the entertainment poor, less time warm book, usually
playing computer games played late, they seem relatively poor performance. (Do you
think female students in computer time was very different from what was on top of
it?) Is not great, but there is a difference. Female students with less, because they can
not play the game. Female students are usually whatsapp exchanges like much point.
Appendix 5: A Sample of a Teacher's
Focus Group Interview
Focus Group Interview with the Student's Teachers

Mr. Lam: Let me introduce myself, my name is Lam and I'm from the University of
Hong Kong.

Miss K: I am Miss K, teacher of Religious Knowledge.

Mr. H: I am H, teacher of Computer Science.

Mr. Lam: Let’s start. How much time do you usually spend in a lesson using
information technology for learning activities?

Miss K: An average of ten minutes.

Mr. Lam: In general, with what classroom activities do you make use of information
technology? For example with discussions?

Miss K: My lessons are mainly in the classroom, so students usually watch something
like movies on the computer.

Mr. H: I usually spend seven to eighty percent of the time teaching information
technology with PowerPoint. To do their homework, students use computers to
practice Programming D. Rarely do they use computers to find information and they
are not encouraged to either for fear of what they might find when they search.

Mr. Lam: Do students often use the Internet in class? Do they seek help concerning
technology in class? If so, how often?

Miss K: Not in my class.

Mr. H: They often seek help in my computer class because they do not know how to
write programs, mainly with Programming D technique. If it is a personal problem,
students are very familiar with technology as they have access to it at home. If they
have problems it's just with the subject matter.

Mr. Lam: Computer technical problems may be raised by the students, if so can the
classroom activities be completed? Have their been any specific cases and if so, how
often ?

Miss K: What do you mean by technical problems?

Mr. H: Computer problems may be the lack of operational knowledge, which would
therefore affect learning. For example, when you ask them to type something and they
don’t know how to use Word. Or with Excel or Graph, they still can’t do what's
required after many attempts.
Miss K: Not in class, but in doing activities. If students are asked to type, they would
say their typing is slow or that they don’t know how to type properly. Therefore those
who can type fast are asked to complete the responsibilities instead.

Mr. H: This is very common, because our school is an EMI. Chinese typing is only
taught in Form One. Students know the concept but have very little practice so they
can only type at a slow pace. For normal use such as with Word, Excel, and
PowerPoint they have no problems and are capable of presenting using PPT.

Mr. Lam: What factors do you think cause these differences? What are these
differences amongst students in general? Will the differences influence anything?

Miss K: It will cause differences. I remember some students that were so good at
using Creative Media to create films. They did it so well, not only beautiful looking
but also with sounds and colours. Other students could not even use the program so
had to present in a more simple way. Here we could see the difference. Anyway, we
do not require them to present in a fixed approach. It doesn't matter as long as they get
the technique right and show beautiful results.

Mr. H: We only start to teach Creative Media in Form Four. Therefore Forms One to
Three do not know how to edit. Video is taught in Form Two with simple theory and
practice. There are differences that depend on what they learnt in their primary
school. In Form One, some can type Chinese as quickly as 60 words per minute.
Some know nothing about Chinese typing.

Mr. Lam: Will the use of ICT have any influence on academic results ? If so, what?

Miss K: Not for my subject.

Mr. H: Only a little. In some schools, each student has an iPad. ICT helps learning. It
is important for how teachers teach and how students learn.

Mr. Lam: So do you think ICT helps students to learn in other subjects? Please give
examples.

Mr. H: Well, for example in the new high school curriculum, MS Office is taught. We
teach each software at a slow pace. For Excel as well as Word, every function is
taught in detail. In this way, it helps. If a student does a project and he doesn’t know
how to write the table of contents, he is a slow learner.

Mr. Lam: Can you share what satisfies you the most in the use of ICT in the
classroom?

Mr. H: As a best case for my subject, IT is used in every period. Students use
computers to do exercises and write programs.

Miss K: Concerning the presentations of the students, if IT is used it is more

attractive.

Mr. Lam: Did you teach those students? Does the use of IT make students pay more
attention?
Mr. H : Whether ICT make learning better depends on the attitude of the students.
Good tools only help learning if the students concentrate.

Miss K: I also taught these students, but did not pay attention to their use of IT, so it is
difficult to answer the question.

Mr. Lam: In your understanding what do students do with regard to the general use of
IT and new media? Inside and outside of school?

Miss K: All will surf the Net, browse websites, or search for information.

Mr. Lam: With social networking sites like WhatsApp and Facebook, have you asked
your students to use them when doing their assignments? If so, what results do they
get? Probably only PPT is used, but is also Whatsapp used for messaging and sending
pictures?

Mr. H: Basically, some students do not have mobile phones so cannot use WhatsApp.
Regarding Facebook on the computer, 10-20% of them do not have Facebook
accounts. Therefore we do not ask our students to do assignments with the IT tools
mentioned.

Mr. Lam: Does this mean new media is also not used?

Mr. H: Students use PowerPoint. If they don’t have computers at home, they can use
the school computers.

Mr. Lam: Is new media used less?

Mr. H: We will have to see. If students want to record a movie, then they have to
borrow the tools required and the process is complicated. Furthermore, students do
not acquire the tools easily.

Mr. Lam: So are you willing to ask your students to prepare IT and new media work
at home?

Mr. H: Willing or not, it is not up to us to decide. It depends on the student's

background. Do they have these resources? If they do, I want them to use them. When
they get a job in the future, they will have to use them. Furthermore, if they use new
media for presentations, it impresses people a lot more. For this reason, I am
definitely willing. However, the backgrounds of our students is not good. Our school
is located near to public housing estates.

Mr. Lam: What are the potential dangers if schools use IT and new media?

Mr. Ha: Generally speaking, the most important thing to mention, is computer
security. Students are not aware of the dangers, and upload information of any kind,
even their own personal private info. We constantly have to remind them.

Miss K: Probably the use of WhatsApp, I know that some students can’t stop using it
when they have their mobile phones with them.

Mr. Lam: Have you ever used social media, Facebook, Twitter etc. to supplement
after-school teaching? If so, what are the students’ responses?
Mr. H: I just setup a Facebook group. I do not know how effective it is yet, we will
have to wait and see.

Mr. Lam: Only just started?

Mr. H: Correct.

Miss K: Not for teaching, but for communication.

Mr. H: They are not encouraged to use Facebook.

Mr. Lam: I see.

Mr. H: They are free to use it but it is not recommended.

Mr. Lam: I see. Does your school offer a computer or other digital devices to
teachers?

Mr. H: The school provides a computer for each teacher. There are teachers who bring
their own computers to school. We are antivirus licensed which makes it more
convenient for teachers to work. Hardware is provided but software is less so.

Mr. Lam: Do classrooms and libraries have computers and other digital devices? If so,
tell me about it.

Mr. H: Each classroom has a computer and a projector. These are normally suppled by
the government. There are ten computers in the library for students to access the Net.
There are also digital tools. We also have a big printer.

Mr. Lam: Is the classroom computer directly linked to the network?

Mr. H : Yes.

Mr. Lam: Does your school provide any IT for students, including classroom
equipment? If so, what are they ?

Mr. H: We have twenty Notebooks for students to apply to use. Applicants can renew
each year. For example, if a student’s computer is out of order they are allowed to
borrow a computer from school for the purpose of learning.

Mr. Lam: Are you satisfied with the IT available to students in the learning
environment? What are the advantages and disadvantages? For example, computer
monitors. Do you think it is sufficient?

Miss K: I think it is sufficient.

Mr. H: I also think so but more would not be bad.

Miss K & Mr H: I hope sooner.

Mr. H: The more and the sooner the better. For the time being however, it is enough.
Recently there has not been enough support for HP so some of them have had to
‘retire’ and this has caused a big problem. We have had to find new resources to buy
new computers.

Mr. Lam: Yes, yes, I know computers have to be upgraded.

Mr. H: Yes, all of the computers must be upgraded. We cannot use Windows for all of
them. We can only start teaching after waiting for them to turn on for a long time.

Mr. Lam: Does your school allow students to use mobile phones or other digital
mobile devices?

Mr. H: No.

Mr. Lam: Do they hand in the phones once the lesson start?

Mr. H: No, they are not allowed to bring them in at all.

Miss K: Not allowed to bring them in at all.

Mr. H: Unless there is a special reason.

Mr. Lam: Has your school won any honours or awards in IT?

Mr. H: Awards, no it failed.

Miss K: What about in Creative Media?

Mr. H: Thank you for reminding me. The film team won a gold and bronze medal
respectively. Soon students will compete in competitions like ‘Robots’. We usually
participate in using software. Our Principal has also won a Make Award.

Mr. Lam: Has your school conducted any projects or research in IT in education like
QEF?

Mr. H: I know.

Mr. H: Let me see. It seems a lot has been done, but nothing actually has. We have
done many projects and research, like QEF, and Language education.

Mr. Lam: Well, does your school have computer training classes for students, or IT
study groups? If so, how often?

Miss K: In the past, Chinese typing classes were held once a year. Gradually though,
less and less students joined. This year we selected some students who are keen in
Architecture to form a team to join contests. After that there were several similar
activities held recently. About two per month until the summer holidays.

Mr. Lam: Do students take the initiative in making use of IT to assist their learning?
What factors make them more enthusiastic?

Mr. H: Usually when collecting more data. Students use a computer to do projects and
this influences them to be more enthusiastic.
Miss K: When too much times is spent collecting data and big themes make them not
serious. They just find any type of information and hand it in for their assignments.
Probably they are not serious when selecting suitable data.

Mr. H: If the hardware and software is too outdated, students are affected in its use.

Mr. Lam: Do parents agree that their children should use IT in school? What is their
point of view?

Mr. H: Parents are not opposed. Students usually use IT for non-learning purposes so
their parents misunderstand its benefits. The parents’ opinion influences students. I
think it is all a matter of how IT learning is supervised.

Mr. Lam: How does the economic situation of the family and social factors affect the
use of IT? More specifically, their socioeconomic status.

Mr. H: A great impact. IT is expensive. An mini iPad costs $3000 and an Apple Air
costs more than $6000. IT affects families with poor economic backgrounds.

Mr. Lam: Does the government and the community provide material support and
policies to promote IT education?

Mr. H: I think they do, but not enough nor to the point. Only some of the students
benefit. So the help is not great. The plan to help poor students get computers helps
but I think more is needed.

Mr. Lam: Do you think the use of IT in school and off-campus by students is very
different?

Miss K: Quite different. In school, teachers supervise the students use IT to study.
Off-campus and at home, students might not use IT for study purposes.

Mr. H: Yeah, a lot of problems when they raised when they get into the bad

Mr. Lam: Is IT in education for students in your school related to social requirements
and technology?

Mr. H: Generally speaking, we are close to keeping up with the social requirements,
and keep on upgrading but it is still affected by the equipment.
Appendix 6: A Sample of a
Principal’s Interview
Principal Interview Transcript
Lau - Dr Lau
Chu - Principal Chu

Lau: This is phase II using the qualitative method. We are going to interview
principals, students, parents and teachers. In our team we have Albert Chan, the
research assistant, Iris, and Carson (Allan’s student). This research team represents the
Education College of the University of Hong Kong. This interview aims to understand
IT Education in Principal Chu’s school.

Lau: First of all, let’s get to know you first. We will begin with your personal
background. How long have you been a principal?

Chu: Eleven years.

Lau: Including other schools?

Chu: Correct.

Lau: When did you begin to use computers?

Chu: When I began teaching in 1987. My first computer was 8086, a very big one.
You were probably not even born. It also served as a printer. I have also used a Mac
for my printer. In the past I taught Biology which involved using a lot of pictures so I
went to Taiwan to buy a scanner. After two or three years I changed to Apple
computers to get the pictures. It was a hand carry scanner but not very accurate. Not
many people used them twenty years ago.

Lau: So you were quite advanced.

Chu: Not at all.

Lau: Would you please share your experiences of ICT teaching?

Chu: In the past, not many people made use of IT to design handouts, work sheets,
and exam papers. In other words hard copies have since changed to electric copies.
Though I began earlier than other people, twenty years ago, I had to spend a lot of
money. Most of my salary went on buying computers, especially Apple software since
they were the original editions and were not reproduced.

Lau: As a principal, what do you think is the most important usage of IT?

Chu: In the past when I was a teacher, teaching was more important. Now I am
engaged in the administration side of things, so the use of IT in school management is
the more important. Not only just for teaching and learning, IT also helps in
administration which is considered as knowledge administration. IT is not only a skill
which is convenient for the whole school in the learning framework, it also brings
changes through IT renewal. Really, we are faster than many people in making use of
IT to change culture.

Lau: Is your school an aided school?

Chu: Exactly, it is an aided secondary school.

Lau: For how many years?

Chu: 43 years, beginning in 1970. Back as 1911, our school was originally located in
Canton. The school was named after H.P. to memorialize him.

Lau: How large is your school? How many students and teachers are there?

Chu: Our school is large, with five classes in one Form. In order to make it attain a
high standard, we have tried to cut the number of classes per Form from five to four
but there are still some with five. After discussions with the government, we have put
in place some alternative policies. Since parents were disappointed with only four
classes in one Form making the total number of classes between 25-28, about
900-1000 students. We want to meet their requirements, so there are five classes in
alternative years, with finally 27 classes in total. Classes will not be reduced any
more. In the future we will see whether the population rises or not before deciding to
increase the number of classes.

Lau: What is the teaching structure?

Chu: There are 60 teachers employed by the government, some are employed by
school funding to share the teaching load. In general, we are a standard school but a
considerably large one.

Lau: Have you shared the experiences of your new policies in education? For
example, to apply for a high-quality teaching fund?

Chu: We are the first school to participate in ‘knowledge management’. There are no
other schools participating. Our school is the first one to attain the Hong Kong 'Make
Award', a cooperative effort with the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. If you
search the Internet you will find appreciation for the effort we have made.

Our focus is :
1. The construction of the school IT foundation,
2. The investment of manpower: how does IT help to change management and
administration? Furthermore, we have lesson study rather than lesson
observation. It is still conceptual.

Our main points are:

1. Capture teachers’ knowledge,
2. Knowledge sharing,
3. Knowledge re-trending.

We also have assessment which is valuable feedback for learning. In fact it is

the best way for students to learn all that they are taught. Anyway, there is GAP, even
to re-teach. Therefore, we have ways to test whether or not the students have met their
targets. To do assessment for learning is not easy. Through exams and from the data
we get to know the situation promptly for the students. Many teachers think that the
students learn the entire content taught. In fact this is not the case. I have joked with
the teachers: “Let’s put something on the forehead to show how much the students
have learnt from what we teach in the lessons---60%, 50%, for we, teachers to know.”
If the students do not learn well, what can the teachers do? Well there are some
strategies. To ask students to reflect and correct their mistakes. When teachers
understand the students’ weaknesses, they can re-teach. This approach is new and not
many schools try it.

Lau: I understand IT is used a great deal in your school. In practice, how is it used in
teaching and management?

Chu: There is a desktop computer as well as a projector in every classroom. Some

teachers even bring their own computers to the classroom and make use of them for
presentations. There is no interaction through IT. The approach is direct teaching in a
single way using PPT. Outside of the class, there is interaction. For example: English
builder join a third party to do practices. Some teaching material is uploaded to the
school E-class. Students review Notes Video Clips. Students love designing their own
web pages rather than using the E-class. However, we don’t force them to design web
pages. Gradually, they have started to love the E-class. This is teaching and learning
used in administration. We mainly develop two systems: Portal and people Net KM
Information is knowledge, academic, and Record Analysis derived from SAMS. We
have to be careful not to show the members of staff for security reasons. The records
include the whole class and any personal data saved on the computer. The behavioural
record consists of different procedures.
Concerning those who do not hand in their homework. First of all their teacher
warns them. If the teachers are too busy to check the records that isn't a problem
because the teaching assistant (TA) will help check. The TA will then prepare the
warning letters needed. If any student does not make the necessary improvements, he
or she will be warned again. If they still don't improve, they must stay after school to
finish the homework.

Lau: When did you begin to use IT? What are the changes to teaching before and after
its use? What is the role of IT in your school?

Chu: I don’t know whether I can answer your question. We have practiced IT for more
than ten years. The pace is not slow. Teachers have designed many programs. Before
using E-class, they were already using IT and therefore had designed many tailor
made programs. After using KM, I asked them if the programs were not focused. I
would like the programs to serve as a 'cook book' which can be glanced for the whole
picture. In recent years there have been regular and frequent security and firewall
upgrades. Therefore the point of view of the teachers has changed.
Teachers have used E-mail for quite a long period of time. Before I worked
here, our school was already using E-mail, but it was not compulsory. Some teachers
did not check E-mail, or didn’t even turn on the computer. Nowadays we upload
many things to the Internet so they have to use the computer at least once a day. This
has been the primary change.
The sharing culture has increased. So to has communication. In the past
teachers worked alone. Mr H understands the situation clearly. He has worked here
for more than ten years. Our Vice Principal too, since he has worked here for more
than thirty years. He can answer your questions about the beginning of when we
started opening E-mail accounts.
Lau: Thank you. The third part of what I want to know is about your school IT policy
and its practices. Even though from your school web page your school IT level is
obvious, I would like to know from you the special characteristics of your school in
regards the policy of using IT and the practical approach.

Chu: We encourage students to use IT but do not set targets for them to know specific
software or input methods. Nevertheless, students studying in this school for six years
can more or less learn IT skills such as for presentations or with video and film
editing.

Lau: What is most concerning about IT in your school?

Chu: We have not any definite practices. What is important is the outcome, not the
procedure. I don’t micro manage. We think in IT both teaching and learning are
important. We encourage teachers and students to use it without setting basic
requirements. I learn that in some schools, students must learn input methods. In our
school, students after studying here for five years, have known input methods. In
some schools students must know Chinese character input methods. In our school, we
teach the basic skills of IT and students will be able to use them. At present, IT use is
not as simple as just being able to use PPT or Word, it means a student must study
using all his effort.

Lau: Do you have any IT policies? When you set policies, what is your main concern:
foundation setting, the standard of IT of your teachers and students, or integrated IT
policies? In other words, what is your focus?

Chu: My focus is not the process. It is important that our students have learnt what
they should learn and attain the standard required. We are an ordinary school and aim
to reflect what our students have attained. Anyway, we can’t control or have any data
to attain.

Lau: Is there any measure or approach to help those students who do not have
computers and so cannot access the Internet?

Chu: There are many students in our school in a poor economic situation. Every year
a student can apply under our system to borrow a computer for one year. If they want
to renew that lease, they can. There is also a plan proposed by the government for
students to apply to. I forget the name of the plan, i-learning I think. We encourage the
students to apply and we can help them to apply in groups. Some students do apply.

Lau: Are there any approaches to help students whose IT standards are comparatively
low?

Chu: Either through student peer learning or by teachers reviewing the students’ basic
foundation level.

Lau: What does IT bring to the cultural or environmental changes of your school?

Chu: I might not see the changes. When I began working in this school they had
attained some standards. In recent years, they have learnt how to share amongst
teachers and students, and to have interaction as well. Amongst teachers, more
sharing, and stimulation was encouraged. It was the same amongst the students.
Lau: How do you assess the influence of IT in your school?

Chu: It’s difficult to evaluate. We have not checked so we don't know the percentages.

Lau: After your school started to use IT for teaching or administration, do you think
there are influences up to a certain standard?

Chu: I think there are. Generally speaking, like with observation of teaching, we
usually use Youtube clips which are very helpful. With History, historical films are
shown, unlike the course books which are only 2D and boring. With Maths, in the
past, we used to draw diagrams on the board without any dynamic feeling. Now we
make use of software to show graphics and image for students to understand it more
easily. In Science, IT is also used. In the past I taught Biology. Nowadays, IT can help
show the workings of the heart and make it very real. For Physics and Chemistry,
there are also similar examples.

Lau: I want to know about the parents who use IT. Does your school provide them
with help, training, or guidance?

Chu: Let me talk a little about the PTA. Sometimes it provides computer classes for
the parents. We first ask whether they are interested in learning. Then our teachers or
other parents will do the teaching. If they don't know how, parents are taught how to
send E-mails. They also want to learn about Explorer and E-class. Besides the E-mail
of the teachers and students, we help to set up the parents accounts. We hope in the
future that our school documents to parents will be sent both by hard copy and soft
copy. We have thought of using Explorer for parents’ e-mail but this has not been
done yet. We want to use Whatsapp as well. At present, many people use Whatsapp or
similar programs to send messages. Using SMS would cost a lot.

Lau: How about the security of computers. A concern for parents, teachers, and
principals alike. Are there teachers to supervise the use of IT? Does your school
install any software such as a firewalls to prevent students accessing websites which
are not suitable?

Chu: Yes we do. We have experienced problems. We have firewalls. During class
teachers supervise the students' use of computers. Every day the computers
automatically reset back to their original state. There are many servers on our
classroom computers. Some servers are for keeping the materials of the teachers,
while some are for school documents, with the rest being for other material. In the
past there used to be no restrictions. So long as it was a teachers account and was
connected to the school network, one could access the servers. Teachers would forget
to log out and students could then use their accounts, especially in the classrooms.
Though the student only wanted to download teaching materials, he had access to all
the documents. Later on, all classroom computers could only access the teaching
server and the other servers were blocked. After a while the classroom computers turn
off automatically. If a teacher wanted to reuse the computer, there was no problem. He
could turn it back on if they asked. Has our web page been hacked? Yes, but we then
joined a security plan proposed by CU. This has been implemented sucessfully. There
has been only one hack per year as a result.

Lau: Do you train teachers to use IT? And if so, in what way?
Chu: Not for the new generation of teachers. In the past, the government had BIT. For
the new training we recently had a new photocopying company with a new solution.
Therefore we had a workshop run on a staff development day.
There are a few options. Some data is upload to the school network. For instance,
there is a video on webcams on the server. If a teacher does not understand how to use
one, he can ask his colleague, or watch the video on the server. Teachers can read the
pdf documents uploaded to the network.

Lau: When a teacher faces problems using IT in their class, does your school provide
help?

Chu: We have an IT prefect in each class. They can help. Sometimes a teacher is
careless, if so then the prefect can help. If not, we have two technicians to help. For
example, if a projector is out of order, we can use an extra one as a backup. It is very
helpful.
Most of the parents face the following problems. Students overuse their
computers at home. They seem to use the computer to do their homework but in fact
they are playing computer games. In my early teaching days, more boys did this, but
now both boys and girls do it too. If students overuse their computers for non-
academic pursuits, it will affect their studies. In general, one will get poor results in
their studies if they overuse the computer for non-academic reasons. This is just
common sense. Parents expect the teachers to be the ones to only help the students
when they get poor results. In fact, it is also important for the parents to discipline
their sons and daughters. We held workshops for parents to solve the above problems,
so that they would know how to deal with it. Furthermore the social workers help too.

LauLet’s talk about the modern trends. For example new media, specifically social
media and Facebook. Some teachers probably use it in their teaching. What do you
think the challenges are?

Chu: We have experienced problems. As far as I know, some teachers provide links
for students to download teaching materials. This is positive. However, sometimes
photos are posted that concern details of daily lives. Our staff will check and council
them if this occurs. It may be problems amongst the students. To amass data is a
positive step. On the contrary, some students are more sensitive. So are teachers. For
example they get careless and ‘like’ things. Teachers are adults who should have a
certain moral standard. They should not respond to things that are not suitable.
Teachers of my age would not. Some young teachers treat the students as their peers.
In our school the relationship between teacher and student is very close, so much so
that they have meals together. This can be great. However, what is bad is if there is no
borderline.

Lau: What are your thoughts on if a teacher doesn’t use IT in teaching?

Chu: Well, it is up to them, so long as their teaching is great. If there are complaints
from students or parents, we will point out that it is not because they don't use IT in
teaching.

Lau: One last question. Will you share IT teaching and digital gap? What is your point
of view?
 Chu: Nowadays there is not much of a digital gap because most people own a
computer. The problem is when there are several siblings in a family sharing just one
computer.
In the past, computers were expensive. If the economic situation of the
students is poor, then their exposure to IT becomes less, especially for those coming
from a low economic class. They simply stay at home and don't go out. If one doesn't
have many resources then they will get to know strangers online without showing
their identity. If they goes out they have to spend money. Therefore the world online
narrows their exposure.
I am worried about this and hope the government will provide more resources
so that the type of students I've mentioned not only have concerns for their academic
studies but also participate in other activities. Students who come from wealthy
economic backgrounds, who have good academic achievements, and who want to be
doctors and lawyers for example, in future they will contribute to society.
For ordinary students, they can select other subjects and become ordinary
people. With such differences, does the use of IT in teaching bring about a special
outcome?
Honestly, speaking, KM can facilitate students’ learning and help to encourage
self learning and allow for better attainment. The sharing teachers can help their
workload become less. This is the importance of IT. If a teacher has less work load,
they can spend more time communicating with their students, and at the same time,
their work maintains a high standard. This is one of the important reasons.
Furthermore, I hope the more we learn, the more contact and collaboration will result.
This is important in the 21st century.

View publication stats