More and more teachers are facing the decision whether they should allow or promote students the use of technology in the classroom. The decision is difficult as there are apparently both advantages and disadvantages in doing either way. In terms of positive impacts, research revealed that the use of digital devices in the classroom setting was capable of facilitating faculty-student interactions and in-class participation, which in turn enhanced engagement and active learning (Fitch, 2004; Partee, 1996; Stephens, 2005). On the contrary, evidence was also identified to show a relationship between notebook use and distraction in class. The pilot study investigated the desirability of allowing digital devices in class in our local context, and to explore the factors that influence the success of the practice. Two studies were conducted with students in teacher-training programmes at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. In the first study, students were allowed to use computers in the lessons (free use) in the whole semester and then they were asked to reflect upon the learning benefits, if any. In the second study, the future teachers were asked to comment openly on the use of digital devices for more guided purposes such as student response system and e-textbook. Results in general revealed that it is indeed a very controversial and complicated issue. On the one hand, many positive learning benefits relating to using digital devices in class are acknowledged. On the other hand, distraction is a major concern as students may use the technology for irrelevant purposes in class. Participants thus were also very conservative about channeling the use of computers in classroom to other academic contexts. The answer to the question whether computers be allowed in class thus is not a simple yes or no but is a series of suggestions concerning when and how to do it more appropriate.
[Copyright of Electronic Journal of E-Learning is the property of Academic Conferences Ltd.

The present study explored motivation and engagement among Chinese and Australian school students. Based on a sample of 528 Hong Kong Chinese 12-13 year olds and an archive sample of 6,366 Australian 12-13 year olds, achievement motivation was assessed using the Motivation and Engagement Scale-High School (MES-HS). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling using LISREL found that, across Chinese and Australian students, there was similar factor structure, reliability, correlations with educational outcomes, and gender and age effects—suggesting there are no fundamental differences of kind between the two cultures. There were, however, differences of degree in that Australian students reported significantly higher levels of adaptive achievement motivation and significantly lower levels of maladaptive achievement motivation. It is concluded that although Australian students have higher levels of reported achievement motivation than Chinese students on a number of dimensions, the two groups' fundamental orientation does not appear to be markedly different in terms of motivation structure, profile, and relationships. This holds implications for cross-cultural motivation assessment, data analysis, and programmatic intervention aimed at enhancing (and sustaining) students' achievement motivation in different cultural and national contexts.
[Copyright of International Journal of Testing is the property of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.482220]

Background: The Education Commission (EC) of Hong Kong, the advisory body set up by the government on the overall development of education in Hong Kong, began developing a policy of education reform in 1998 and published its blueprint in 2000. In 2006, the EC published its fourth official report on the progress of the reform -- Progress Report on the Education Reform (4).
Discussion Focus:The policy document developed in 2000 contains a paragraph that summarises the 14,000 public submissions received by the EC at that time. The EC has adopted this summary as its reform priority. It contains four sociopsychological elements -- joy in learning, effectiveness of communication, creativity, and sense of commitment -- and points out that education for lifelong learning should emphasise more on the inner qualities of a person than personal skills. The policy also recognises for the first time that human knowledge is constructed.
This paper analyses the texts of the 2006 progress report and the 2000 policy document and discovered that the progress reported has essentially neglected the priority stated in the policy.
In parallel with the textual analysis, the paper explores the meanings of the four socio - psychological elements from the perspective of personal inner qualities.
Suggestions: The paper is a reminder that the priority stated in the policy is what the public want and what the EC has promised to act on. It would be undemocratic and negligent for the EC to bypass it quietly. The paper suggests that the deep meanings of the four socio-psychological elements should be explored, to be followed by modification of the strategies of the reform so as to fulfil what the public want. The paper also suggests supplementary empirical studies involving educational professionals to validate the results.
背景：教育統籌委員會（教統會）是政府成立的咨詢團體，以提供教育整體發展的意見。它從1998年開始制訂教育改革的政策，並於2000年公佈了藍圖。2006年，教統會公佈了教育改革進展的第四份正式報告。
討論焦點：2000年的政策文件中有一段，總結了教統會當時從公眾所收到的14,000