Research Findings返回


The questionnaire comprised 7 key questions. First of all, all respondents were asked to evaluate each of the 10 universities based on their perception of its overall performance using a scale of 0-10, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. Respondents were suggested to take into account the university’s local and international reputation, facilities, campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of its students, its learning atmosphere, as well as the diversification and degree of recognition for its courses. Survey results indicated that, in terms of principals’ perception, CUHK received the highest mean score of 8.27, rated by 70 principals, HKUST came second with an average score of 8.00 whereas HKU ranked third with a mean score of 7.89. For other universities’ performance scores, please refer to Tables 2 and 3 below.


Table 2.    Overall Performance of Each University

[Q1] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of each university after taking into consideration its local and international reputation, facilities and campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of students as well as its learning atmosphere, diversification and level of recognition of its courses, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following universities?

Average

Standard error

No of raters

Recognition

CUHK

8.27

0.18

70

98.6%

HKUST

8.00

0.16

71

100.0%

HKU

7.89

0.22

71

100.0%

PolyU

6.94

0.13

70

98.6%

CityU

6.74

0.12

70

98.6%

HKBU

6.45

0.12

69

97.2%

EdUHK

6.35

0.14

69

97.2%

LU

5.51

0.18

69

97.2%

HKSYU

5.32

0.18

68

95.8%

OUHK

5.16

0.18

69

97.2%

[1] On 27 May 2016, HKIEd was formally renamed The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK).


Table 3.    Time-series Figures for Overall Performance of Each Institution 2008-2017

2008 Survey

2009 Survey

2010 Survey

2011 Survey

2012 Survey

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

1. CUHK

8.38

0.13

8.23

0.13

8.14

0.11

8.33

0.15

8.23

0.15

2. HKUST

7.69

0.11

7.74

0.11

7.82

0.11

7.94

0.15

8.00

0.15

3. HKU

8.49

0.14

8.37

0.14

8.56

0.12

8.64

0.15

8.33

0.18

4. PolyU

6.65

0.09

6.83

0.09

6.84

0.10

6.81

0.10

6.95

0.11

5. CityU

5.99

0.09

6.22

0.09

6.32

0.09

6.33

0.11

6.44

0.11

6. HKBU

6.18

0.10

6.40

0.09

6.33

0.10

6.35

0.10

6.61

0.09

7. EdUHK[1]

5.30

0.13

5.72

0.13

5.82

0.13

5.84

0.13

5.98

0.13

8. LU

5.46

0.12

5.66

0.12

5.45

0.12

5.66

0.13

5.75

0.12

9. HKSYU

4.83

0.14

5.22

0.15

4.91

0.16

5.14

0.16

5.19

0.15

10. OUHK[2]

--

--

--

--

--

--

4.84

0.17

5.03

0.19

2013 Survey

2014 Survey

2015 Survey

2016 Survey

2017 Survey

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

Average

Standard error

No. of raters

Recognition

1. CUHK

8.51

0.13

8.68

0.12

8.51

0.11

8.03

0.17

8.27

0.18

70

98.6%

2. HKUST

8.10

0.11

8.14

0.13

8.02

0.10

7.87

0.17

8.00

0.16

71

100.0%

3. HKU

8.76

0.14

8.76

0.16

8.64

0.12

8.09

0.19

7.89

0.22

71

100.0%

4. PolyU

7.16

0.10

7.03

0.10

6.88

0.11

6.82

0.13

6.94

0.13

70

98.6%

5. CityU

6.64

0.10

6.53

0.11

6.40

0.11

6.55

0.12

6.74

0.12

70

98.6%

6. HKBU

6.64

0.09

6.55

0.11

6.32

0.11

6.36

0.14

6.45

0.12

69

97.2%

7. EdUHK[1]

6.06

0.11

5.96

0.13

5.87

0.13

6.21

0.15

6.35

0.14

69

97.2%

8. LU

5.80

0.12

5.60

0.13

5.14

0.14

5.42

0.19

5.51

0.18

69

97.2%

9. HKSYU

5.49

0.14

5.31

0.16

4.97

0.14

5.28

0.18

5.32

0.18

68

95.8%

10. OUHK[2]

5.27

0.14

5.04

0.16

4.74

0.14

5.14

0.19

5.16

0.18

69

97.2%

[1] HKIEd was formally renamed The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK) in 2016
[2] Newly added in 2011.


Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Universities, 2008-2017


With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/ President/Principal of each university, taking into consideration one’s local and international reputation, approachability, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations, Professor Joseph J.Y. Sung of CUHK topped the list with an average score of 8.59 rated by 71 respondents. Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST and Professor Peter MATHIESON of HKU came second and third, with mean scores of 7.57 and 7.02, each as rated by 63 and 66 respondents respectively (Table 4).


Table 4.    Overall Performance of Each Vice-Chancellor / President / Principal

[Q2] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of Vice-Chancellor / President / Principal of each university while taking his local and international reputation, approachability to the public, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations into consideration, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principal?

Average

Standard error

No of raters

Recognition

CUHK – Prof. Joseph J.Y. SUNG

8.59

0.23

71

100.0%

HKUST – Prof. Tony F. CHAN

7.57

0.17

63

88.7%

HKU – Prof. Peter MATHIESON

7.02

0.21

66

93.0%

EdUHK – Prof. Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG

6.99

0.15

67

94.4%

CityU – Prof. Way KUO

6.89

0.15

62

87.3%

PolyU – Prof. Timothy W. TONG

6.74

0.20

58

81.7%

HKBU – Prof. Roland T. CHIN

6.48

0.18

60

84.5%

HKSYU – Dr. Henry H.L. HU

6.36

0.23

55

77.5%

OUHK – Prof. Yuk-shan WONG

6.28

0.17

57

80.3%

LU – Prof. Leonard K. CHENG

5.98

0.22

59

83.1%


The next question asked the respondents’ opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Results showed that “work attitude” was most commonly cited, as chosen by 62% of respondents. The next tier included “commitment to society”, “social / interpersonal skills”, “conduct, honesty”, “global prospect / foresight” and “emotion stability”, accounting for 59%, 52%, 51%, 42% and 37% of respondents correspondingly (Tables 5 and 6).


Table 5.    Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong

[Q3] What do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of? [multiple answers allowed]

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 340 responses from 71 respondents)

% of total sample

(Base = 71)

Work attitude

44

12.9%

62.0%

Commitment to society

42

12.4%

59.2%

Social / interpersonal skills

37

10.9%

52.1%

Conduct, honesty

36

10.6%

50.7%

Global prospect / foresight

30

8.8%

42.3%

Emotion stability

26

7.6%

36.6%

Critical thinking and problem-solving ability

22

6.5%

31.0%

Communication skills

17

5.0%

23.9%

Job opportunity

17

5.0%

23.9%

Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua

16

4.7%

22.5%

Social / work experience

12

3.5%

16.9%

Creativity

12

3.5%

16.9%

Academic and professional knowledge

9

2.6%

12.7%

Financial management

8

2.4%

11.3%

Self-confidence

7

2.1%

9.9%

Others (see Table 6)

5

1.5%

7.0%

Not lack of anything

--

--

--

Don’t know

--

--

--

Total

340

100.0%

Base

71

Missing case(s)

0


Table 6.    Q3 (Other answers in exact wordings)

  1. 大學生的內涵有待提昇,經常不顧形象,粗言穢語的行徑普遍
  2. 對中國人身分之認同,不了解中國歷史及近代中國之發展與成就
  3. 對國家的認同
  4. 抗逆力
  5. 聆聽意見的尊重態度,放棄自己權利或利益的勇氣,切身處地於別人的位置去明白他人的處境和想法

 

Question 4 asked the principals the impact of the current secondary school curriculum on enhancing students’ civic awareness. Results revealed that 29% of the principals thought the impact was useful, 37% thought it “half-half” and 34% thought the impact was useless (Tables 7 and 8).

 

Table 7. The Impact of the Current Secondary School Curriculum on Enhancing Students’ Civic Awareness

[Q4] How useful do you think is the impact of the current secondary school curriculum on enhancing students’ civic awareness? [one answer allowed]

Frequency

% of valid respondents

(Base = 70)

Very useful

}Useful

2

} 20

2.9%

} 28.6%

Quite useful

18

25.7%

Half-half

26

37.1%

Quite useless

}Useless

20

} 24

28.6%

} 34.3%

Very useless

4

5.7%

Don’t know

--

--

Total

70

100.0%

Base

71

Missing case(s)

1

 

Table 8.    Time-series Figures for the Impact of the Current Secondary School Curriculum on Enhancing Students’ Civic Awareness 2014-2017

2014

2015

2016

2017

Useful

36.8%

29.1%

30.4%

28.6%

Half-half

42.1%

37.2%

39.2%

37.1%

Useless

18.9%

31.4%

29.1%

34.3%

Don’t know

2.1%

2.3%

1.3%

--

Total

95

86

79

70


Question 5 is repeated from 2012 and asked school principals what they expected in the education policies from the new term of SAR Government and multiple answers were allowed. Results revealed that 89% of the principals expected to “increase funding on education expenses”, 52% expected to “stop/reduce cutting schools”, while 49% expected to “stop/reduce the interference on school management” (Tables 9 to 11)


Table 9. Expectation on the Education Policies from the New Term of SAR Government

[Q5] What do you expect in the education policies from the new term of SAR Government? [multiple answers allowed]

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 181 responses from 71 respondents)

% of total sample

(Base = 71)

Increase funding on education expenses

63

34.8%

88.7%

Stop/reduce cutting schools

37

20.4%

52.1%

Stop/reduce the interference on school management

35

19.3%

49.3%

Strengthen administrative support

32

17.7%

45.1%

Improve school-based management

9

5.0%

12.7%

Others (see Table 11)

4

2.2%

5.6%

No expectations

1

0.6%

1.4%

Total

181

100.0%

Base

71

Missing case(s)

0

 


Table 10. Comparison on Expectation on the Education Policies from the New Term of SAR Government 2012 and 2017

2012

2017

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 270 responses from 104 respondents)

% of total sample

(Base = 104)

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 181 responses from 71 respondents)

% of total sample

(Base = 71)

Increase funding on education expenses

79

29.3%

76.0%

63

34.8%

88.7%

Stop/reduce cutting schools

66

24.4%

63.5%

37

20.4%

52.1%

Stop/reduce the interference on school management

47

17.4%

45.2%

35

19.3%

49.3%

Strengthen administrative support

43

15.9%

41.3%

32

17.7%

45.1%

Improve school-based management

16

5.9%

15.4%

9

5.0%

12.7%

Others

15

5.6%

14.4%

4

2.2%

5.6%

No expectations

4

1.5%

3.8%

1

0.6%

1.4%

Total

270

100.0%

181

100.0%


Table 11. Q5 (Other answers in exact wordings)

  1. Increase the teachers to students ratio diversified paths for secondary students.
  2. 修正現行HKDSE的組合,宜拓寬選修而減小核心科目的比重。修正大學入學要求,強化數學邏輯
  3. 提升學教效能
  4. 改善班師比例

Next, respondents were asked to rate how confident they were in the Hong Kong education system led by the Education Bureau using a scale of 0 to 100 marks, in which higher marks indicated a higher level of confidence. Results showed that 69 valid respondents gave a mean score of 54.0 marks, which was subject to a standard error of 1.87 marks (Table 12 and 13).


Table 12. Confidence in the Hong Kong Education System

[Q6] Overall speaking, how confident are you in the education system led by the Education Bureau? Please rate your confidence in 0 to 100 marks, 0 represents not confident at all, 50 represents half-half and 100 represents very confident.

Frequency

% of valid respondents

(Base = 71)

0 – 9

--

--

10 – 19

--

--

20 – 29

2

2.8%

30 – 39

6

8.5%

40 – 49

15

21.1%

50

11

15.5%

51 – 59

1

1.4%

60 – 69

19

26.8%

70 – 79

12

16.9%

80 – 89

3

4.2%

90 – 100

--

--

Don’t know

2

2.8%

Total

71

100.0%

Missing case(s)

0

Mean

54.0

Median

55.0

Standard error of mean

1.87

Valid base

69


Table 13. Time-series Figures for Confidence in the Hong Kong Education System 2008-2017

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Mean

54.4

56.2

52.2

49.9

54.4

53.8

50.7

48.8

48.3

54.0

Median

55.0

60.0

50.0

50.0

55.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

55.0

Standard error of mean

1.69

1.58

1.75

1.81

1.60

1.80

1.95

1.96

2.28

1.87

Valid base

111

109

114

104

95

102

89

84

77

69


Chart 2- Confidence in the Hong Kong Education System, 2008-2017


 

The last question was in open-end format that served to probe for respondents’ in-depth opinions regarding the subject matter and/or the survey. Please refer to Table 14 below for the submissions received.


Table 14. Opinions / Suggestions from School Principals (in exact wordings)

[Q7]Is there any other opinion you would like to bring to the attention of the researchers? [open-end question]

      1. 多聆聽教育有心人的意見;
      2. 為照顧較多後進生的學校提供更的資源,供學校靈活運用,以便老師可以真正有時間的接觸學生,建立師生關係,讓老師了解學生的家庭背景、小學生活、學習困難、願望等,進而安排適切的輔導服務或有助學生建立自信的活動,讓學生發揮潛能,振翅高飛;
      3. 在新高中學制推行後,各校平均有70-80%畢業生會繼續修讀各類課程,學校需要在成長及生涯規劃方面做大量工作,協助學生從正規課堂及其他學習經歷中發現自己的能力、興趣和志向。當局應從速檢討班師比例,增加教師人手;
      4. 從速檢討學位教師與文憑教師比例,短期最少改為90%:10%,以減少對教師不公,製造內部矛盾;
      5. 從速檢討GM升SGM的機制,在中間加入新職級,鼓勵更多老師積極在教育事業中尋找機會取得認同,亦可減少一些直升SGM位置的老師因滿於現狀而失去動力。
    1. 希望社會各界人仕還學校寧靜的教學環境!讓學校持專業精神和態度做好教育校務!
    2. 教育局局長的人選十分重要。不諳教育的外行人領導將令本港教育繼續沉淪。
    3. 教育缺乏長遠的規劃,只著重短暫的效果而令到教育傾斜,目標混淆,浪費資源。