Challenges and Strategies in Teaching Heritage Studies: A Teacher's Reflections

1. Local Heritage Studies A white-rat-teacher’s experiences Mrs. Agnes Lee June 2009, revised

2. A possible 2009-2012 scenario • History students: • SBA assignments in all core subjects, History and other elective subject(s) • more OLE activities. • Those activities require much capacity in ‘self-directed learning’, ‘reading to learn’, risk-taking, independent thinking etc...

3. A possible 2009-2012 scenario • Those activities may pull some students away from their safety zones. • Some students, such as the quiet and obedient ones, may not be able to cope with these challenges. • Consider stress problems. • More preventive measures, the better.

4. A possible 2009-2012 scenario • History teachers • May have to teach Liberal Studies also • i.e. have to supervise a great no. of students to do SBA assignments in 2 subjects • may have more team work • may have more OLE duties etc...

5. A possible 2009-2012 scenario • For both teachers and students, those tasks could be very time consuming and exhaustive. • There are only 24 hours a day.

6. A possible 2009-2012 scenario • What is the overriding tasks for teachers? • To create outstanding academic results? • To guide students to strike a balance between academic achievements and healthy growth?

7. The white-rat-teacher’s principles in this task of preparing exemplars • Minimum investment, maximum outcome • Strong discipline on time-management • Be sensitive and understanding to students’ responses

8. Experiment 1 (2007-08) • Teacher’s background knowledge of the SBA task • Little, just skimmed through the draft of SBA Handbook • time available • 3 months • late Feb to end of May

9. Experiment 1 • Invited 3 F. 4 fast learners to do one SBA written report • 1st supervision – 1 hour • Explained the task • Drew attention to the part `Requirements’ • Drew attention to definition of ‘heritage’ • A hard copy of SBA handbook to each student

10. Experiment 1 • Arranged 6 more supervision sessions • 30 min/session; in group • Pre-set schedule and venue for the 6 sessions • Both teacher and students followed the schedule as much as possible • Gave prior notice when one appointment could not be made • This mechanism helps tosave timeandprevents confusionin time-management

11. Experiment 1 • Teacher’s struggle in giving supervision: • Strong intervention vs autonomy • Decision – autonomy comes first • 2nd supervision session (before Easter holiday) • Title Proposal – students chose ‘TVB’ • no reading materials collected; empty talk only • 3rd session (after Easter holiday) • Students narrowed down the topic – local drama series of TVB • no reading materials collected; empty talk only

12. Experiment 1 • By late-April • data-collection failed • Why? • few sources written in English version • students - weak in flexibility; • Teacher’s reaction – more intervention • suggested ‘Po Leung Kuk’ • teacher’s briefing on ‘Po Leung Kuk ‘

13. Experiment 1 • Mid-May • 1st draft – wrong focus • teacher’s reaction – instructed students to re-write according to a question (This is wrong.) • Late May – 2nd draft • Pens down – Final Exam. was near

14. Experiment 1 – 2nd draft • The question given to students: • As a non-government organization of a long history, has the Po Leung Kuk adjusted its services according to the changing needs of the HK society? • It is a wrong title – why? • Po Leung Kuk • an organization, not a heritage X • the building of Po Leung Kuk • a building, a heritage

15. Experiment 1 – trial marking • 1st trial marking: • Level 0 because the choice is wrong • 2nd trial marking: • Readjustment of the definition of ‘heritage’  Level 1

16. Experiment 1 – draft 2 • 3rd trial marking: • Title of draft 2 was revised: • Po Leung Kuk’s tradition of protecting children and women • 保赤安良(protecting children and women) • a spiritual heritage • p. 104 – level 3 • ‘meaning’ was very slightly touched

17. Experiment 2 (2007-08) • After Easter holiday • Two F.6 fast learner • late April - Bun Festival • May • Interviews at Cheung Chau • Collected a few secondary source • Teacher provided a few primary source reading materials

18. Experiment 2 • Late May – 1st draft (>4000 words) • p.111 • Mid-July – 2nd draft (>2400 words) • Just a shortened version

19. Experiment 3 (2008-09) • The purpose is to produce L4-5 exemplars • From mid-Jan to mid-Mar 2009 (2 mths) • F. 6 History students • Whole class; • As one course assignment

20. Experiment 3 - controls Teacher’s instruction: • A printed copy of Schedule and Guidelines to each student • Scheme of work • definitions of ‘heritage’, assessment criteria, samples of citations (SBA Handbook), • Template: what/ change & continuity / meaning • Advice students to choose from the list of declared monuments under the AMO

21. Experiment 3 - controls • Title selection • students showhard copiesof relevant reading materialsto get teacher’s approval • Discourage students to collect materials from internet only; • Primary source materials – not compulsory • URL addresses, author/name of book/year of publishing etc should be shown on the hard copies

22. Experiment 3 - controls • Further reading • student presents a written outline with details; • Teacher check student’s understanding of what is read by asking the studentelaborate his/her thoughts • Teacher may have to suggest/force change of topic at this stage if the choice is proved unrealistic

23. Experiment 3 - outcome • 1st draft is marked by the teacher • Impression marking • 2nd draft • It is taken as the final version • All achieved Level 4-5

24. Experiment 3 - students’ sharing • High achievers (external & internal assessments) • This task is more difficult and painful than preparing a tutorial essay • To prepare a tutorial essay, they are expected to read 3 pieces of reading materials; the teacher gave 2 sources.\ • To prepare this SBA task, the teacher gave no suggestion of references.

25. Experiment 3 - students’ sharing • High achievers • One student handed in the report 2 weeks late • She refused to give up when data-collection proved the topic is an unrealistic one although the teacher persuaded her to. • Finally she changed topics twice. • She found it very painful to decide what to take and what not to take. • The process caused her negative emotions and tears.

26. Experiment 3 - students’ sharing • Low achiever (external & internal assessments) • Her written report (level 4) was muchbetterthan her other essays (level 2)in content and organization. • Sheenjoyedthe process because she chose what she was interested to do and do it, to a certain extent, at her own pace. • She said that herself-confidence in studying History increased. The change is noticed by the teacher during lessons.

27. What was learnt? SBA Guide • Be familiar with the SBA Guide (HKEAA version) • requirement • definition • assessment criteria • elective specific • Title of local heritage studies • NOT in form of a question

28. What was learnt? Cater for learner diversity • Choosing approach & topic • Very important for success & efficiency in supervision • Spend at least 1 month • Facilitate right matching: student’s capacity & approach • Which level to achieve? • Set realistic goals • Very weakly motivated students • To start, consider level 1-2? • Experiment 3

29. What was learnt? Time management • Strong discipline on time management • For both teachers and students • Mutual agreed schedule and timer may help. • Set reasonable schedule • Consider other learning activities too.

30. What was learnt? Interim supervision • Helpful in quality control • Make major changes before it is too late • Consider normal lesson time • Train up a few capable students to facilitate peer learning in class when the teacher is giving individual supervision during normal lesson time • Be a good listener when giving supervision • Use guiding questions to help the student to make decisions

31. Teacher’s worries • English version • inadequate reading material? • According to student’s interest? • How much? • Weak in flexibility • May lead to ‘great effort, little reward’

32. Teacher’s worries degree of intervention • How much? • A lot? • High marks, weak research skills • Little? • Competition • Among students • Among subject electives • Among schools

33. Teacher’s worries - justice • Justice? • Successful plagiarismis very bad learning experiences • Control • Citations, footnotes, bibliography • Show hard copies of reading materials read • Ask student to elaborate what was read during interim supervision • Others?

34. Teacher’s worries - fairness • Fairness among students • More family resources, higher marks? • Ask more, get more? • Students may have different reasons for not asking more. • Lazy? • Shy? • Over-confident of oneself? • Considerate to the teacher?

35. Teacher’s worries - fairness • Control • Choosing approach/title • match individual capacity • Further supervision • equal no. of individual interim supervision sessions • deliver hard/e-mail copies of teachers’ advice/feedback to all (time-saving; the same question will not be asked again; may be used for the next cohort)

36. Conclusion – how much effort? • SBA • 20% of the final result • Spend 20% of the total effort • Make SBA preparation a tool to prepare students for the written exam (80% of the final result)

37. Work/ studies • Tonurture life • Not toendangerlife

38. Good Health