Research FindingsBack
|
The questionnaire comprised 7 key questions. First of all, all respondents were asked to evaluate each of the 10 institutions 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 institution’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, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.33, rated by 99 principals, CUHK came second with an average score of 8.23, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 8.00. For other universities’ performance scores, please refer to Table 2 below. |
Table 2. Overall Performance of Each Institution |
[Q1] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of each institution of higher education 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 institutions? |
|||||
|
Average |
Standard error |
No of raters |
Recognition |
|
HKU |
8.33 |
0.18 |
99 |
94.3% |
|
CUHK |
8.23 |
0.15 |
101 |
96.2% |
|
HKUST |
8.00 |
0.15 |
99 |
94.3% |
|
PolyU |
6.95 |
0.11 |
96 |
91.4% |
|
HKBU |
6.61 |
0.09 |
98 |
93.3% |
|
CityU |
6.44 |
0.11 |
97 |
92.4% |
|
HKIEd |
5.98 |
0.13 |
95 |
90.5% |
|
LU |
5.75 |
0.12 |
96 |
91.4% |
|
HKSYU |
5.19 |
0.15 |
91 |
86.7% |
|
OUHK |
5.03 |
0.19 |
91 |
86.7% |
|
With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/ President/Principal of each institution, taking into consideration one’s local and international reputation, approachability, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations, Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung topped the list with an average score of 8.26 rated by 100 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU followed and attained a mean score of 7.64 rated by 98 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came third scoring 7.29 and rated by 90 respondents (Table 3). |
Table 3. 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 institution 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 |
8.26 |
0.15 |
100 |
95.2% |
|
HKU – Prof. Lap-chee TSUI |
7.64 |
0.18 |
98 |
93.3% |
|
HKUST – Prof. Tony F. CHAN |
7.29 |
0.15 |
90 |
85.7% |
|
HKIEd – Prof. Anthony B.L. CHEUNG |
7.23 |
0.14 |
93 |
88.6% |
|
PolyU – Prof. Timothy W. TONG |
6.88 |
0.13 |
83 |
79.0% |
|
HKSYU – Dr. Chi-yung CHUNG |
6.75 |
0.17 |
83 |
79.0% |
|
HKBU – Prof. Albert CHAN |
6.52 |
0.14 |
86 |
81.9% |
|
CityU – Prof. Way KUO |
6.48 |
0.14 |
88 |
83.8% |
|
LU – Prof. Yuk-shee CHAN |
6.28 |
0.13 |
79 |
75.2% |
|
OUHK – Prof. John C.Y. LEONG |
5.89 |
0.19 |
74 |
70.5% |
|
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 64% of respondents. The next tier included “commitment to society”, “social/interpersonal skills” and “conduct, honesty”, accounting for and 57%, 52% and 43% of respondents correspondingly (Table 4). |
Table 4. 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? You may check as many choices as you like. |
|||
|
Frequency |
% of total responses (Base = 514 responses from 105 respondents) |
% of total sample |
Work attitude |
67 |
13.0% |
63.8% |
Commitment to society |
60 |
11.7% |
57.1% |
Social / interpersonal skills |
55 |
10.7% |
52.4% |
Conduct, honesty |
45 |
8.8% |
42.9% |
|
|
|
|
Global prospect / foresight |
41 |
8.0% |
39.0% |
Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua |
40 |
7.8% |
38.1% |
Emotion stability |
37 |
7.2% |
35.2% |
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability |
34 |
6.6% |
32.4% |
Communication skills |
31 |
6.0% |
29.5% |
|
|
|
|
Financial management |
21 |
4.1% |
20.0% |
Social / work experience |
21 |
4.1% |
20.0% |
Creativity |
17 |
3.3% |
16.2% |
Job opportunity |
17 |
3.3% |
16.2% |
Academic and professional knowledge |
12 |
2.3% |
11.4% |
Self-confidence |
10 |
1.9% |
9.5% |
Computer proficiency |
2 |
0.4% |
1.9% |
|
|
|
|
Not lack of anything |
2 |
0.4% |
1.9% |
Don’t know |
2 |
0.4% |
1.9% |
|
|
|
|
Total |
514 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
105 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
0 |
|
|
Question 4 was set out to understand which institution the principals believed was the most supportive to local secondary schools. Survey results indicated that CUHK was the most popular with 34% of vote share, leading others by a wide margin. HKIEd came second with 27%, whereas HKBU ranked third with 10% (Table 5). |
Table 5. Most Supportive Institution to Local Secondary Schools |
[Q4] Which one of the following institutions do you think is the most supportive to local secondary schools? You can only choose one institution. |
||
|
Frequency |
% of valid respondents |
CUHK |
29 |
33.7% |
HKIEd |
23 |
26.7% |
|
|
|
HKBU |
9 |
10.5% |
PolyU |
8 |
9.3% |
HKU |
7 |
8.1% |
HKUST |
5 |
5.8% |
CityU |
2 |
2.3% |
LU |
2 |
2.3% |
HKSYU |
1 |
1.2% |
|
|
|
Total |
86 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
Base |
105 |
|
Missing case(s) |
19 |
|
Question 5 is newly added this year 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 76% of the principals expected to increase funding on education expenses, 63% expected to stop/reduce cutting schools, while 45% expected to stop/reduce the interference on school management (Tables 6 & 7). |
Table 6. 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? |
||
|
Frequency |
% of valid respondents |
Increase funding on education expenses |
79 |
76.0% |
Stop/reduce cutting schools |
66 |
63.5% |
Stop/reduce the interference on school management |
47 |
45.2% |
Strengthen administrative support |
43 |
41.3% |
Improve school-based management |
16 |
15.4% |
|
|
|
No expectations |
4 |
3.8% |
Others |
15 |
14.4% |
|
|
|
Total |
270 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
Base |
104 |
|
Missing case(s) |
1 |
|
Table 7. Q5 (Other answers in exact wordings) |
| 1. IT upgrade, 取消融合教育, 實行小 |
| 2. 中學教師全面學位化 |
| 3. 支援設備, 校舍環境的學校 |
| 4. 因應學生需要讓學校有不同的發展, 而非單一靠成績(學業)評論學校 |
| 5. 委任有識見, 有經驗, 有承擔之人出任教育局官員 |
| 6. 放緩教育改革 |
| 7. 提升教育質素 (尢其是classroom teaching) |
| 8. 增加大學學位, 由18% 到最25% |
| 9. 增加教師/推行小班教學 |
| 10. 請勿再有GM/CM之分, 因所有都是大學生 |
| 11. 檢討新高中各科課程及評估模式 |
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 95 valid respondents gave a mean score of 54.4 marks, which was subject to a standard error of 1.60 marks (Table 8). |
Table 8. 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 |
0 – 9 |
1 |
1.0% |
10 – 19 |
0 |
0.0% |
20 – 29 |
2 |
2.0% |
30 – 39 |
7 |
6.9% |
40 – 49 |
17 |
16.7% |
50 |
20 |
19.6% |
51 – 59 |
3 |
2.9% |
60 – 69 |
25 |
24.5% |
70 – 79 |
13 |
12.7% |
80 – 89 |
6 |
5.9% |
90 – 100 |
1 |
1.0% |
|
|
|
Don’t know |
7 |
6.9% |
|
|
|
Total |
102 |
100.0% |
Missing case(s) |
3 |
|
|
|
|
Mean |
54.4 |
|
Median |
55.0 |
|
Standard error of mean |
1.60 |
|
Valid base |
95 |
|
| 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 9 below for the submissions received. |
| Table 9. 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. Should get those educators/ involved in education field to lead the leading post of the EDB instead of those AOs |
| 2. 其實香港提供的教育於國際研究, 如PISA,取得驕人的成績, 政府應大力宣傳, 慶祝以鼓勵香港的教育工作者及肯定大家的努力. |
| 3. 要完善香港的教育體系, 政府必須達致下情上達, 作任何重要決定, 應與各大中小學建立良好互信之夥伴關係. |
| 4. 教育局之表現, 專橫, 外行, 盲目短視,因循, 夕陽心態, 官僚, 罄竹難書 |
| 5. 請EOB立即優化教學, 停止殺校 |
