Collaborative Inquiry in Co-constructing a Better Understanding of Effectively Using ICT in Chinese Learning L.H. Wong, P. Gao, C.S. Chai, C.K. Chin, & T.M. Ching Learning Sciences Lab., National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This collaborative inquiry project brings together Chinese Language teachers, curriculum specialists and researchers to co-construct better understanding of using ICT to enhance Chinese learning for primary school students in Singapore. Four data sources – one-to-one interviews, focus group discussion, online posting, and the researcher‟s field notes – were collected and comparatively analyzed. The findings indicate that all the participants agreed that collaborative inquiry is more beneficial then the “traditional” professional development workshops. Positive changes of most teachers' views about the incorporation of ICT in Chinese learning have also been reported. However, as the teachers are more acculturated to traditional professional development that emphasizes pre-planned and didactic instructions, they experienced tensions together with the officials and the researchers and they were not experienced in the ill-structured nature of the collaborative inquiry and its implication in teacher empowerment. Based on the findings, guidelines for conducting effective collaborative inquiry in Singapore are recommended.

Introduction The teacher professional development (TPD) continues to be one key issue in educational reform. There is a growing agreement that a change of the system is needed (Moon, 2002; Emihovich & Battaglia, 2000). Collaborative Inquiry (CI) (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Bray, 2002), a systematic approach that promote collaboration between researchers and practitioners to advance both knowledge and practice (Batliwala, 2003), and to make meaning from their experience (Yorks & Kasl, 2002), is one of the answers to this issue. This proposal reports the major findings of a one-year collaborative project in Singapore involving 14 teachers of Chinese Language (CL), two curriculum specialists from Ministry of Education (MOE), and four teacher educators as researchers. The major aim of the project is to co-construct a better understanding of using ICT to enhance Chinese learning for primary school students. The two major research questions are, 1. 2.

What are the impacts of the CI on the professional development of teachers, teacher educators and policy makers? How do the participants from the three parties negotiate the meaning of CI?

Literature Review This study is grounded in the adult learning theory. Teachers are adult learners and they are likely to prefer selfdirected learning which focuses on resolving authentic classroom problems (Huang, 2002; DiLello & Vaast, 2003). TPD should therefore actively engage teachers in collaborative learning that tap into the wealth of their experience (Knowles, 1990). These learners‟ characteristics fits well and provides further support for the adoption of CI model for TPD (Yorks, 2005). A review of TPD literature indicates the growing popularity of collaborative inquiry (Darling-Hammond, 1996) or collaborative innovation (Randi & Corno, 1997). It is suggested that CI is able to address the common pitfalls of traditional TPD workshops. TPD workshops are usually one-off events that may not account for teachers‟ work context and beliefs. They also may not allow for critical discussion between researchers and peers on challenges teachers encounter, the opportunities for engaging in collaboration, experimentation, and reflection (Sandholtz, 2002; Richardson, 2003; Kelchtermans, 2004; Chai & Merry, 2006). Recently, collaborative innovations have begun to emerge which offers professional development, based on the rationale of the collaboration between research and Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

practice to advance both knowledge and action (Batliwala, 2003). It is usually referred to as collaborative inquiry (CI) (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Such efforts enable teachers to have access to group support and resources which will help them resolve their own classroom challenges. CI is a powerful learning methodology for resolving workplace difficulties as it is context-sensitive (Bray, 2002) and promotes ownership among teachers concerning school reform (Huffman & Kalnin, 2003). While CI is a powerful methodology, it does not follow a fixed agenda or prescribed plan, which is very much valued in the work environment as a mark of efficiency. In CI, the participants may agree to change the original research question or modify the course of actions as the collaboration progresses. It will take time for the group members to adapt to this way of working (Bray, et al., 2000). Furthermore, as CI usually involves multiple parties, tension among the parties are sometimes inevitable (Pomson, 2005). Tension arises mainly due to the different perspectives brought to the inquiry by the different participants. This influences how they interpret the interactions and as a result may give rise to stress and distortions in the group process (Bray et al., 2000). Another source of tension would be the mismatched agendas of the different parties involved. The commonly occurring issue is: Whose research questions are being investigated (Sachs, 1999)? Due to the pressing concern of having to move forward with the inquiry and the tendency to avoid dealing with conflicts, these distressing issues may go unresolved (Bray et al., 2000). In addition, one of the areas of interest to CI researchers is the impact of role differentiation in an inquiry group. This is usually the case of senior academic officers who can only attend some of the CI group meetings. They also do not conduct parallel action assignments (Bray et al., 2000). The potential impact of this group of participants cannot be neglected. This study therefore aims to discover issues pertaining to the adoption of CI as an avenue of TPD for the innovative use of ICT for CL learning. CI is fairly new to Singaporean schools, especially in the area of learning Chinese. It is hoped that through CI, plans can be devised to resolve the issues of the dropping of Chinese language standard and engaging the students to learn (Leong, 2001; Ong, 2002; Zhang & Liu, 2005). Furthermore, Singaporean teachers are likely to possess deeply rooted mindsets of being examination-focus and conservative toward innovative pedagogy (Looi & Hung, 2006). They are also likely to be submissive towards the national/school leaders‟ policies and decisions (see Batliwala, 2003). In addition, there is increasing evidence that CL teachers are facing greater challenges in engaging and motivating students to learn the language and the students‟ language proficiency level has been declining (e.g., Leong, 2001; Ong, 2002; Zhang & Liu, 2005). Liu et al. (2004) has also reported the lack of innovative use of ICT in Chinese classes in Singapore. It is not clear how these social-cultural characteristics would influence the CI. This study therefore aims to discover issues pertaining to the adoption of CI as an avenue of TPD for the innovative use of ICT for CL learning among the participants. Study Description This two-phase study started in January 2007 and will complete by December 2007. The first phase, the design stage, took place between February and May 2007 and consisted of six face to face meetings with intervals of 2-3 weeks. The sessions usually start with researcher-led discussions on specific topics, followed by teacher-generated discussions on dealing with their teaching challenges. In addition, we deploy Knowledge Forum, an on-line discussion platform, for ongoing discussions. The teachers grouped themselves into three inquiry groups, one of which (comprising three teachers from the same school) decided to develop a school-based curriculum on creating “audio dramas” with IT tools. The other two groups worked on two different ICT-mediated Chinese writing curricula. Furthermore, Curriculum Planning & Development Division (CPDD) proposed the participants to develop a Chinese computer input lesson as a supplement to the writing curricula. This proposal will present the major findings from the first phase of the study. Participants The collaborative inquiry participants include 14 CL teachers from 12 primary schools within the same school district, two representatives from the Ministry of Education (MOE), and four researchers from the National Institute of Education (NIE). The two MOE officials represent the Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD) and Educational Technology Division (ETD) respectively. The researchers come from two different departments of NIE – Learning Sciences & Technologies (LST), and Asian Language & Culture (ALC). Research Methods

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

We apply qualitative methods to study how the project impacts on the participants‟ perspectives of the CI processes and the use of ICT in CL learning. To do so, we adopt the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, which is epistemologically consistent with the CI framework of situating learning in a community of practice through inquiry. The participants were regarded as individuals who actively interpret and construct the meanings of their experiences (Cohen et al., 2000). Drawing on the paradigm, we attempt to understand the meanings of the experiences from the participants‟ perspectives. Data collection and analysis We incorporated several data sources: field notes taken during the six face-to-face (f2f) sessions, interactions on the KF, a focus group discussion during session 6, and one-to-one interviews after session 6. To protect their identities, we identify the interviewees by pseudonyms. The interviewees were the two MOE officials (Celine from CPDD and Elaine from ETD) and two teachers each from the three inquiry groups (Group 1: James and Marvin; Group 2: Holly and Paul; Group 3: Denise and May). Each interview lasted about 45 minutes. Teachers who were not interviewed will simply be identified as Teacher A, B, C, and so on. The data were then analyzed through the constant comparative method adapted from the grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Categories were formed by grouping the labels during open coding. The researchers also attempted to explicate the relationships among the data. The findings reported in the next session were then sent to all the interviewees to verify their agreement. The field notes and the survey results were also reviewed but no contradictory evidence was found. Findings 1. The impacts of collaborative inquiry on the participants‟ professional development The project has impacted the participants in several ways. The project has been beneficial to the professional development of the three participating parties – the teachers, the MOE officials, and the researchers. 1) The teachers developed a positive attitude towards collaboratively inquiry gradually All the participating teachers had no prior CI experience. Furthermore, there was a miscommunication at the very beginning of the project, as the project details were conveyed through first, the school principals, and then Heads of Department (HoD) before they finally reached the participating teachers. Some teachers ended up mistaking that they were to attend a one-off meeting or a workshop. As our discussions became increasingly interactive in the last three sessions, they gradually achieved appropriate, though fragmented, understanding of the nature of CI. The following examples are representative of the changes of the participants‟ perceptions. “I thought you required our experience to design software. I realized that it is not the case after the first session. It is more collaborative as we have to design a lesson plan to train pupils. We are not just content providers.” (Denise, 16 June 2007 - Interview) “I didn‟t expect much in the beginning because I wasn‟t sure about the aim and the activity format of the CI. I wasn‟t sure who the project would benefit. NIE? Our school? ... At first I thought we would learn new IT skills and from there, we co-design new software.” “CI is about sharing – we voice our views and within the group we design a plan.” (James, 21 June 2007 - Interview) “I thought this was just a traditional writing workshop. Now I know that CI is the effort of building a group and establish the team spirit. Then we focus on a problem. We discuss to find a solution.” (Paul, 21 June 2007 - Interview) The teachers‟ attitudes have evolved as well. In the first two sessions, they were passive. Later, they became more active in contributing ideas and experiences. However, only James in the “audio drama” group has demonstrated emerging curriculum leadership while the rest still relied on the researchers to facilitate and push the collaborations. Celine‟s observation has best summarized the process of changes among the teachers,

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

“At first, the teachers were not sure at all. Through the early discussions, they explored and planned how to do it. Then they discussed the difficulties they face. Slowly, they heat up. Then they found the „feel‟. There were more interactions during the last three times and they were very involved. They knew they ought to do it and they have obtained some results from it. They had a sense of achievement.” (Celine, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) In general, they perceived CI as a TPD approach – and a more conducive one than “traditional” TPD workshops. For example, when being asked, “How do you perceive CI as a TPD approach?” Some participants‟ answers were, “Not at the beginning. We have to wait till we actually do hands-on and you will discover this is very good. It provides an opportunity for us to climb out of the well. It expanded the horizon of the teachers.” (May, 21 June 2007 - Interview) “Yes, this is TPD but different from the traditional one. We learned something, especially for the first two sessions when you were sharing a lot of things … [Interviewer asked, “Which one do you prefer - the traditional or the CI approach?”] … Half-half. Traditional method – I focus on and learn something. CI – I can apply what I‟ve constructed immediately and continue.” (James, 21 June 2007 - Interview) “Gradually and indirectly, yes. Because it helps us to upgrade … [Interviewer asked, “Which one do you prefer - the traditional or the CI approach?”] … The more participatory and interactive one.” (Paul, 21 June 2007 - Interview) In short, the participants carry a positive attitude towards CI in general sense and find it an effective approach in their professional development. 2) Changes of the teachers’ views about the use of ICT in CL learning Even though our CI cycle is only half way through by the time this paper is written, that is, we have concluded the stage for pedagogical design, but yet to pilot the designs at the school, the teachers have articulated some changes in their views about innovative use of ICT in their students‟ CL learning, as some of them put it, “I am a traditional person. I used to think that it takes a lot of time to train my students in ICT and the benefit is minimal. After the CI, I‟m more confident to take the first step. I can plan and conduct it.” (Marvin, 21 June 2007 - Interview) “You have really changed my mindset. When I went back to school and told my colleagues that I was going to train my pupils in Chinese input, they told me it was useless. They have no interest. But I found the pupils are very interested in Chinese input … Maybe I can speed up my teaching next term and bring more students to the computer lab to learn it.” (Teacher A, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) “We live in a „micro world‟. Someone has to take us to look at the big picture (macro). Before, we only knew that ICT was used in educational games. Now, we know this is the direction to go. We are not at the micro level anymore.” (May, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) More specifically, the teachers were keen in ICT-based teaching but did not have the resources to do so. The project was able to address some teachers‟ prior concerns in ICT integration, thus increasing their confidence in doing so. This is because the CI has facilitated them to raise their problems and obtain advices. The co-designed curricula have also offered them concrete, systematic plans to achieve their aim. As one teacher has put it, “Before, I felt that there was really no time to teach my students Chinese input. Now that we have a systematic lesson plan, I have more confidence to try it out.” (Frances, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) Two exceptions are James and Teacher B. James is a very proactive teacher who has already been championing innovative use of ICT in CL learning within his school even before the CI program started. Therefore, when being

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

asked the same question, his simply answered, “No difference.” (21 June 2007) Teacher A who has the experience of practicing innovative pedagogy without ICT supports, argued, “ICT is not everything. Your professional expertise, teaching methods are important elements to help pupils do well. A teacher good in IT may not be able to help pupils to get good result. ICT is only an „appetizer‟ to the student. My view has not changed. It cannot change easily.” (Teacher B, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) In short, we argue that the CI program has become a catalyst in changing most of the teachers‟ (especially those who used to carry a reserved view in innovative pedagogy) attitudes toward the incorporation of ICT in their teaching at the positive direction. The program was able to increase most participating teachers‟ confidence and willingness in ICT integration. However, such an effect did not seem to occur on the two teachers who have already been relatively “progressive” in their teaching prior to participating in the CI program. 3) The professional development of the MOE officials Like the teachers, the MOE officials who had been new to CI had also experienced positive changes in their attitude toward the model. As they have put it, “CI is much better than theory-based programs. If we can do it well, it is good upgrading for the teachers. If we can continue to push CI, it is very good.” (Celine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) “I‟m new to educational research. I find CI a good avenue to expand my career … Our department will launch a similar collaboration but we haven‟t chosen any concrete approach. This is a good opportunity for me to accumulate some experience. We may adopt CI.” (Elaine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) In a sense, we have planted a seed of CI among the participants. Both of specialists are also keen on observing the teachers‟ subsequent school-based experiments in order to discover practical challenges in ICT integration. Of interest are how pressing is to incorporate Chinese input into the existing curriculum and what role the ICT could play in the future exams. This may impact their future curriculum and technological planning. 4) The professional development of the researchers The impacts of this CI project on the four researchers are also evident. Firstly, it is an opportunity for the faculty members from the two NIE departments to meet frequently to identify problems and design the CI activities. This has resulted in cross-disciplinary (LST‟s technology-enhanced pedagogy and ALC‟s language education) understandings which will benefit both group‟s future research and teaching. Furthermore, we have better understanding of the characteristics of local teachers. Bray et al. (2000) discussed the ill-structured, exploratory and generative nature of CI, as opposed to what most teachers are acculturated to – traditional meetings with focused agendas. In this project, the participants took time to adjust to the more interactive, learner-centered approach of CI. Celine observed the situation closely and offered her view, “The entire coordination is not good enough. The teachers did not know what‟s going on at the beginning and their roles. I think our school teachers have to be guided very closely …” [Interviewer (Researcher): We wanted to empower the teachers.] … In the end we found out that it did not work.” (Celine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) “I am not sure about your goal. You have made a lot of assumptions but in the end you relax them all and it became free for all. You let the teachers do what they want … The process needs to be modified. It is important to let the teachers understand the concepts thoroughly. If they have a general direction, they can think along that way.” (Elaine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) The MOE officials, who are ex-teachers themselves, have given us insightful comments to help us understand Singapore teachers better. This finding will help us in planning for future collaborations with local teachers. Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

On the other hand, we have changed our roles during the CI: from leading the discussions during the first three sessions to facilitating and supporting the teacher-generated discussion in the later sessions. 2. Negotiating meaning among the three parties As researchers, we want to examine whether CI is a viable TPD approach for Singapore teachers, apart from coconstructing curricula with the participants. On the other hand, the MOE officials treat Chinese writing as their “burning inquiry question”, as they have put it, “Very excited about incorporating ICT into teaching of Chinese. We lack this piece in teaching of Chinese ... In primary schools, writing is a big problem. Children do not like to write and don‟t write well. We really have put in a lot of thinking and effort in trying to improve the situation. You came in at this time.” (Celine, 25 June 2007 - Interview) “I assumed that the composition is the focus of the research.” (Elaine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) On the other hand, the teachers may need to meet the varied expectations of their respective school administrators or HoD‟s, for example, “I need to report to them something different, and some actual product to show them. Every time you (the researcher) email me (on CI administrative matters or resource sharing), I have to forward it to my HoD.” (Teacher B, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) “My HoD would want me to get something back to the school. I need to bring back results to share with teachers, then with pupils. “(Teacher C, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) “HoD didn‟t ask much. I will be the only one running your study as the department is working on a bigger project. I can run a small scale study for this project, maybe.” (Teacher D, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) A notable tension arose in one inquiry group. The researcher who facilitated the discussion wanted to focus on co-designing the lessons during the limited meeting time. However, a teacher in the group was eager to share with her department some writing technologies. She therefore repeatedly requested for an online forum to test the ICTbased composition lesson design. Apparently, the duo had different priorities during the inquiry. The researcher should bear the bigger responsibility for not trying to resolve the conflict earlier as he was the facilitator. Although this was an isolated case of teacher-researcher tension, it showed the importance of resolving conflictive priorities in order to achieve the goal set up front. We have also observed a tension that involves all three participating parties. This project was originally proposed with a focus on co-designing Chinese writing curricula. We later revised it to empower teachers to work on their own “burning inquiry questions”. Subsequently, one school worked on an audio drama curriculum while the other groups decided to work on writing anyway. Later, we spent half of the discussion time, which was unanticipated, to co-construct a lesson plan for Chinese input. Therefore, we had little time left for the composition writing plans, which was a cause of concern for the MOE officials, as they have put it, “We wanted to work on Chinese writing but it did not happen. Firstly, one group changed direction, which is regrettable. Secondly, we wanted to co-design pedagogy for use of ICT in Chinese. If we can follow our original plan, it is very good. We seem to be far away from our goals. Maybe we ask for too much from the teachers. …” (Celine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) “We spent a lot of time on input training, which is a very small problem. We missed out on the big picture – writing.” (Elaine, 25 June 2007 – Interview) While MOE emphasizes motivating and scaffolding the pupils to write, the “audio drama” group believed otherwise, as their group leader James has put it,

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

“We find that verbal skill is more important for our students. If they couldn‟t even speak well, how could we expect them to write well?” (James, 21 June 2007 – Interview) Apparently, both wanted to raise the writing standards of the pupils but they subscribe to different methods. As such, there was mismatch of expectations between the two parties. Despite the tension, participants have learnt about each other‟s job nature and limitations, and expectations of their colleagues. The following examples are related to MOE official-teacher relationships, “I think they [officials] are very active in helping us. But their planning [national CL curriculum] was idealistic. After talking to us, they have realized our problems. Now we have also understood why they made such a plan.” (Denise, 15 June 2007 - Interview) A bond was forged between the participants. For example, “I get to know more people like you [the researchers] and other school teachers. We will get advice from you in the future, e.g., Action Research. We can contact you for advice.” (James, 21 June 2007 – Interview) Elaine summarized the synergy amongst the three parties, “Teachers share with us their problems and we see it with our own eyes. There is synergy amongst the three parties, and we understand each other‟s jobs, etc. better. And we know who to approach if we need support. It is a network that we are building.” (Elaine, 18 May 2007 – Focus Group) In short, the mismatched corporate and personal agendas of the participants from different parties have caused multiple tensions that might have undermined the results of the CI. However, the participants have taken the opportunities to get to know each other‟s job natures and limitations. This might be helpful in reducing the tensions and establishing collaborative relationships in the long run. Discussion and Implications The encouraging findings are that all the participants agreed that CI is a more beneficial TPD approach then the “traditional” instructor-centered programs. Moreover, the project has helped built the confidence of teachers in incorporating ICT in their teaching (Huffman & Kalnin, 2003). However, as the teachers are more accustomed to traditional meetings and TPD that emphasize pre-planned agendas or didactic instructions, they were not used to the teacher empowerment process that we have been attempting to facilitate. They took time to adapt to a less-structured approach and can appreciate its emphasis on teacher empowerment. As much as we would like to avoid the pitfalls of the traditional TPD, we also do not want the participants to feel lost in the CI process. Bray, et al. (2000) reported that participants took time to adjust to the changing nature of the CI process. We experienced similar challenges. In the beginning, the participants were not sure about their roles and the end product of the inquiry effort. Gradually, they began to experience the engaging power of the inquiry process. They were able to discuss issues related to their own classroom and draw strengths and support from the group. As such, the participants valued CI as an effective approach in their professional development. As participants bring to the group different perspective and expectations, research indicates that they will experience conflicts and tension when they negotiate meaning in a group (Pomson, 2005; Bray, et. al., 2000) Our findings collaborated research findings on this issue (Graham, et al., 1997). Our participants experienced tension as they could not come to an agreement on, for example, fundamental issues such as to spend precious time searching for a forum or creating a lesson plan. On the other hand, interacting with members from varying backgrounds, experiences, schools, enables the participants to appreciate one another‟s views and their challenges. This leads to mutual understanding, reassurance, and increased confidence in implementing plans. Since the teachers were new to the CI process, they need time to adjust to the flexible nature of this approach. Again, this confirms Bray and his colleagues‟ findings (2000). We therefore recommend three guidelines for the future CI projects in Singapore. Firstly, we should debrief the participants prior to the project to ensure their thorough understandings of the CI approach and our expectations on them. Secondly, the CI model may be modified to progressively ease the teachers into the leadership role. The teacher empowering process can start with relatively well-planned TPD activities, and then gradually move to the less-structured domains. Thirdly, there should also be Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

clear understanding in how to resolve conflicts or reduce tension. They should be resolved within the session to avoid further misunderstandings (Bray et al., 2000). In this CI project, we practiced role differentiation as mentioned by Bray et al. (2000). In essence, not all participants have the same responsibilities. In our CI, MOE curriculum specialists assume the roles of pedagogical experts and advisors of primary school curriculum matters. Their involvement in a teachers‟ CI group is unprecedented. Their roles are not so much as doing hands-on studies in schools but to provide advice on pedagogical and curriculum matters. How big a difference have they made in the CI? Two emerging issues arose as a result of their participation: (1) the implication of integrating Chinese input training into the curriculum as early as possible; (2) the consideration of allowing ICT-based composition writing in exams. We intend to further discuss MOE‟s involvement in our upcoming paper which we will discuss the findings of the second half (the action and refinement phase) of the inquiry. References Batliwala, S. (2003). Bridging divides for social change: Practice-research interactions in South Asia. Organization. 10(3). 595-615. SAGE Publications. 2003. Bray, J.N. (2002). Uniting teacher learning: Collaborative inquiry for professional development. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, Summer 2002. Chai, C.S., & Merry, R. (2006). Teachers‟ perceptions of teaching and learning in a knowledge-building community: An exploratory case study. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 133-148. 2006. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th Edn), New York: Routledge Falmer. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10. DiLello, A., & Vaast, K. (2003). Using adult learning theory. Retrieved 24 Jul 2007 from: http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_webonly.asp?articleid=176&zoneid=78 Emihovich, C., & Battaglia, C. (2000). Creating cultures for collaborative inquiry: New challenges for school leaders. Intl. J. Leadership in Education, 3(3), 225-238. Graham, P., Hudson-Ross, S, McWhorter, P., Burns, S., James, G., Bullock, F. & Anderson, J. (1997). Building Nets: Evolution of a collaborative inquiry community within a high school English teacher eduation program. English Education, 29(2). Retrieved April 19, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals. Huffman, D. & Kalnin, J. (2003). Collaborative inquiry to make data-based decisions in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 569-580. Retrieved April 19, 2007, from IngentaConnect Databases. Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37. Keedy, J.L., Winter, P.A., Gordon, S.P., & Newton, R.M. (1999). An assessment of school councils, collegial groups, and professional development as teacher empowerment strategies. Journal of In-Service Education, 27(1), 29-50. Kelchtermans, G. (2004). CPD for professional renewal: moving beyond knowledge for practice, In: C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds), International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers, 217–238, Maidenhead, Open University Press. Knowles, M. S. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Pub. Leong, W. K. (2001). Xinjiapo xuesheng yongyu yuedu xiguan yiji xuexi taidu he yuwen chengji de guanxi (The language use, reading habit, learning attitude and their relationships with learning outcomes in Singapore schools). Huawen Laoshi, 36, 1-9.

Liu, Y., Kotov, R., Rahim, R.A., & Goh, H.H. (2004). Chinese language pedagogic practice: A preliminary snapshot description of Singapore Chinese language classrooms. Retrieved 27 Jun 2007 from: http://www.crpp.nie.edu.sg/course/view.php?id=254 Looi, C.K.. & Hung, D. (2006). Educational technology special issue on the learning sciences - Capacity building, critical areas, and concerted impact. Educational Technology, XLVI(3), Spring 2006. Moon, B. (2000). A debate we can‟t dodge. Times Educational Supplement, 17 March. Ong, Y.P. (2002). Zhonghua yuyan wenhua yu jiaoxue (Chinese language, culture and teaching). Singapore:Xishan wenyi zhongxin. Pomson, A.D.M. (2005). One classroom at a time? Teacher isolation and community viewed through the prism of the particular. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 783-802. Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.

Randi, J. & Corno, L. (1997). Teachers as innovators. In: Biddle, B.J., Good, T.K., & Goodson, I.F. (Eds), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching, 1163-1221, Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappa, 84(5), 401-406. Sachs, J. (1999). Using teacher research as a basis for professional renewal. Journal of In-service Education, 25(1). Sandhotz, J.H. (2002). In-service training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 815-830. Short, P.M., & Greer, J.T. (1997). Leadership in Empowered Schools: Themes from Innovative Efforts. Upper Saddle River: Merrill. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yorks, L. (2005). Adult learning and the generation of new knowledge and meaning: Creating liberating spaces for fostering adult learning through practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry. Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1217-1244, June 2005. Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. (Eds.) (2002). Collaborative Inquiry as a Strategy for Adult Learning: New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 94, Jossey-Bass. Zhang, D., & Liu, Y. (2005). Pinyin input experiments in early Chinese literacy instruction in China: Implications for Chinese curricular and pedagogic reform in Singapore. Int’l Conference on Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice, Singapore, May 2005.

Wong, L.-H., Gao, P., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Chung, T.-M. (2008). Collaborative inquiry in co-constructing a better understanding of effectively using ICT in Chinese learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2008 (pp. 3652-3659), Las Vegas, USA.