Hong Kong Baptist University
27 November 1999

First of all, I would like to thank David Kember and the Management Committee of the Action Learning Project for inviting me to speak today, at this opening plenary session of the Second Action Learning Project Conference. This is the second such conference organised under the auspices of this inter-institutional collaborative initiative which has been supported by the UGC since 1994. I am very pleased to see the project gathering momentum and receiving increasing institutional support throughout the past five years. It is also truly an encouragement to see so many teachers and academics gathering here today. Your enthusiasm in promoting teaching and learning is truly impressive.

Before starting to prepare my opening, I asked David Kember to give me a few pointers about what the conference organisers would like me to say. David kindly sent me a "brief description" of the Action Learning Project and an 18-page paper on "Transforming Education through Action Research". In addition, I located the URL for the Action Learning Project's website (http://alp.polyu.edu.hk) and I learned that the term action research was coined by the social psychologist Kurt Lewin in the United States in about 1944 in connection with research which aimed to promote social action through democratic decision-making and active participation of practitioners in the research process. I also found the following succinct definition of Action Research :

"It can be argued that three conditions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for action research to be said to exist: firstly, a project takes as its subject-matter a social practice, regarding it as a form of strategic action susceptible of improvement; secondly, the project proceeds through a spiral of cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, with each of these activities being systematically and self-critically implemented and interrelated; thirdly, the project involves those responsible for the practice in each of the moments of the activity, widening participation in the project gradually to include others affected by the practice, and maintaining collaborative control of the process."

[Carr and Kemmis (1986, p. 165-166)]

This struck a chord for me because it could also, with little modification, be a description of the UGC's approach to quality assurance in teaching and learning. It is an activity or process that is "susceptible to improvement". If effective, it proceeds through a series of activities which are "systematically and self-critically implemented". And those involved should seek "widening participation" and the maintenance of "collaborative control of the process."

I was meanwhile gratified to note David's comment, in his paper mentioned earlier, that "Hong Kong is one of the few places where there has been any shift towards quality enhancement (from quality assurance)." As evidence of this, he adduced the Teaching Development Grants which have supported the Action Learning Project among others aimed at promoting inter-institutional collaboration in new initiatives and sharing of experiences in teaching and learning effectiveness.

The UGC actively encourages inter-institutional collaboration in all aspects of the institutions' work including teaching and research, as it can bring together resources, efforts and talents from various institutions. The resultant multiplying effect will not only benefit the participating institutions, but also the higher education sector as a whole. I believe that the Action Learning Project is a very successful example of how the eight UGC-funded institutions can work together towards a common goal, in this case to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

As I mentioned earlier, the UGC first agreed to support the Action Learning Project with a Central Allocation Vote grant in 1994 and subsequently provided continuation funding via a Teaching Development Grant in 1997.

The Action Learning Project involves academics of the 8 UGC-funded institutions and encompasses a wide range of teaching innovations. The two rounds of the Action Learning Project have supported a total of 90 projects in teaching and learning. I understand that here today we have the principal investigators and leaders of the second batch of 40 projects to share with us their experience and findings from their projects.

What makes the Action Learning Project stand out from other inter-institutional collaborative projects is that we see continuous and growing commitment and support from the institutions for the initiative over the last 5 years. I would really like to congratulate all concerned on this which no doubt reflects the efforts they have put in to make the Action Learning Project such a success. The scale of the venture has, I believe, established Hong Kong as a leading centre for educational development through action research.

On a more general note, I would like to place the present project in the context of the UGC's efforts to promote quality assurance and enhancement through new initiatives in teaching and learning.

It has been suggested that the UGC places more emphasis on research than it does on teaching. This is a fairly new perception, and in some ways a not unreasonable one under the circumstances. It has in fact emerged as a result of the establishment of the RGC in 1991 and the linking of outcomes of the UGC's periodic Research Assessment Exercises, the first of which was undertaken in 1993, to part of the institutional funding.

However, the bulk of the institutions' operating grants are still provided for the teaching and learning enterprise that is central to higher education. Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that the UGC does not attach any less importance to teaching and learning. Indeed as the Committee has said and written on several occasions, the UGC regards teaching and hence learning as the primary mission of all the institutions under its aegis. The UGC's support for good teaching is also evident in its various initiatives to support new developments and quality improvements in teaching and learning. Over the past six years, we have awarded a total of $386 million in the form of Teaching Development Grants and Central Allocation Vote grants to support such initiatives, including the $23 million allocated to support the Action Learning Project.

Another initiative of the UGC to assure the quality of teaching and learning in our institutions was the round of Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review (TLQPRs) undertaken in 1996 and 1997 which aimed to focus attention on teaching and learning as the primary mission of Hong Kong's tertiary institutions; and to assist institutions in their efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

These reviews have been independently evaluated, in the spirit of "observing and reflecting" that forms part of the cycle of action research and action learning, by an internationally renowned group of experts from the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. Their principal conclusion was that the TLQPRs were "a right instrument at a right time", albeit, as with any such exercise, there is room for improvement in their design and conduct.

Looking forward, the UGC is planning to organise, in collaboration with the TLQPR Consultative Committee, two seminars with institutional representatives - the first, to discuss the future conduct of TLQPRs, and to share views with and advise the UGC on the scope, design, timing, methodology, etc for the next round TLQPRs (if any); and the second, later, to discuss the future use and application of the Teaching Development Grants.

Meanwhile, in an effort to further promote the sharing of good teaching and learning practices among institutions, the UGC has set aside $10 million from the recent allocation of Teaching Development Grants to support inter-institutional programmes to disseminate good teaching and learning practices as well as programmes aimed at promoting experience sharing among the institutions.

Nevertheless, I am sure you will all agree that whatever we do at the system level must be supported and enhanced at the institutional level if it is to have the effect we all wish to see, namely the continuous improvement of the quality of teaching and learning in our institutions.

It is through conferences like this that the culture of quality in teaching and learning can be spread among all colleagues in the institutions. I therefore wish the organisers and all participants in this Conference a very successful and fruitful series of discussions.

November 1999
UGC Secretariat