Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 2, Foreword (Dec., 2002) Gregory P. THOMAS Some key questions with no easy answers Previous Contents Next

Science Education Reform in Hong Kong

Presently in Hong Kong, as in other countries, substantial efforts are being made in developing science curricula and pedagogies that cater for a diverse student population. There are new curriculum documents focused around Key Learning Areas and a 'Learning to Learn' philosophy and consultations on those documents. Eventually change is supposed to happen in schools. Of course this implies some change in teachers' thinking and practice so that there will be changes in their students. However, research tells us that educational change is difficult to effect as it is a complex process, the complexity of which is not to be underestimated. Science teacher education courses respond to new curriculum initiatives and in Hong Kong's case many of the initiatives are in line with current thinking on best practice in science teaching and are supported generally by available research from Hong Kong and overseas. Therefore there is a reasonable level of congruence between the proposed reforms and what is proposed within contemporary science education. Further, many tertiary science educators are actively involved in the process of curriculum development in Hong Kong. Therefore, there is some impact of the research community in Hong Kong on policy. However, the proposed reforms will still happen against a backdrop of the issues and varying levels of disconnection between teacher education institutions and schools and the teachers within them that were raised above. Our roles as science educators in supporting education reform rely heavily on teachers and schools perceiving that we might be relevant to the forthcoming challenges and also on them being willing to engage in constructive and thoughtful dialogue with us. However, many teachers are skeptical of the need for and nature of the reforms and their theoretical underpinnings, and initiating and developing the dialogue that leads to measurable improvement in students' learning outcomes, as previously mentioned, may be problematic. I have noted that teachers and principals often assign different criteria to me and some of my colleagues when evaluating the performance of potential soon-to-be colleagues and employees who attend their schools for teaching practice attachments. This has become increasingly clear to me as I have listened to mentors in schools discuss the teaching of student teachers taking my methods modules. The differences in what criteria are applied become apparent. However, we should be mindful to respect such differences and use our knowledge of such differences to initiate empathetic dialogue with teachers and principals because their perspectives are truly valid for them and form part of their referents that guide their actions and thoughts in relation to teacher education. What also becomes evident is that at least some of what is taught in methods courses is not seen as relevant to the context of schools and practicing teachers. Some principals in Hong Kong highlight their perception of this lack of relevance in preferring to hire non-trained teachers.