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)

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
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
對國家的認同
抗逆力
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)

Increase the teachers to students ratio diversified paths for secondary students.
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
提升學教效能
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。
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！
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。
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。