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 8.76, rated by 109 principals, CUHK came second with an average score of 8.51, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 8.10. 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 |
8.76 |
0.14 |
109 |
100.0% |
CUHK |
8.51 |
0.13 |
109 |
100.0% |
HKUST |
8.10 |
0.11 |
104 |
95.4% |
PolyU |
7.16 |
0.10 |
102 |
93.6% |
CityU |
6.64* |
0.10 |
98 |
89.9% |
HKBU |
6.64* |
0.09 |
103 |
94.5% |
HKIEd |
6.06 |
0.11 |
104 |
95.4% |
LU |
5.80 |
0.12 |
101 |
92.7% |
HKSYU |
5.49 |
0.14 |
95 |
87.2% |
OUHK |
5.27 |
0.14 |
93 |
85.3% |
* In three decimal places, the respective mean score of CityU and HKBU are 6.643 and 6.641. Thus, they are ranked fifth and sixth respectively.
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 9.06 rated by 107 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU followed and attained a mean score of 8.38 rated by 106 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came third scoring 7.60 and rated by 87 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 |
9.06 |
0.10 |
107 |
98.2% |
HKU – Prof. Lap-chee TSUI |
8.38 |
0.12 |
106 |
97.2% |
HKUST – Prof. Tony F. CHAN |
7.60 |
0.13 |
87 |
79.8% |
HKIEd – Prof. Yin Cheong CHENG |
7.32 |
0.14 |
93 |
85.3% |
PolyU – Prof. Timothy W. TONG |
6.81 |
0.15 |
79 |
72.5% |
HKSYU – Dr. Chi-yung CHUNG |
6.66 |
0.20 |
79 |
72.5% |
HKBU – Prof. Albert CHAN |
6.59 |
0.17 |
91 |
83.5% |
CityU – Prof. Way KUO |
6.49 |
0.17 |
83 |
76.1% |
OUHK – Prof. John C.Y. LEONG |
6.15 |
0.17 |
72 |
66.1% |
LU – Prof. Yuk-shee CHAN |
5.99 |
0.16 |
75 |
68.8% |
The next question asked the respondents’ opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Results showed that “commitment to society” was most commonly cited, as chosen by 60% of respondents. The next tier included “work attitude”, “conduct, honesty”, “global prospect / foresight” and “social / interpersonal skills”, accounting for and 58%, 46%, 44% and 41% 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? |
|||
|
Frequency |
% of total responses (Base = 505 responses from 107 respondents) |
% of total sample |
Commitment to society |
64 |
12.7% |
59.8% |
Work attitude |
62 |
12.3% |
57.9% |
Conduct, honesty |
49 |
9.7% |
45.8% |
Global prospect / foresight |
47 |
9.3% |
43.9% |
Social / interpersonal skills |
44 |
8.7% |
41.1% |
|
|
|
|
Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua |
37 |
7.3% |
34.6% |
Emotion stability |
30 |
5.9% |
28.0% |
Job opportunity |
28 |
5.5% |
26.2% |
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability |
25 |
5.0% |
23.4% |
Communication skills |
25 |
5.0% |
23.4% |
|
|
|
|
Social / work experience |
23 |
4.6% |
21.5% |
Creativity |
22 |
4.4% |
20.6% |
Academic and professional knowledge |
18 |
3.6% |
16.8% |
Financial management |
18 |
3.6% |
16.8% |
Self-confidence |
11 |
2.2% |
10.3% |
Computer proficiency |
1 |
0.2% |
0.9% |
|
|
|
|
Not lack of anything |
1 |
0.2% |
0.9% |
|
|
|
|
Total |
505 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
107 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
2 |
|
|
Question 4 is newly added this year and asked the principals what their major concerns are on whether to teach moral and national education in their school and multiple answers were allowed. Results revealed that 69% of the principals were most concerned with “the curriculum”, while 49% with “directions of teaching” and 45% with “teaching materials”. Other less common concerns included “assessment criteria”, “teachers’ reactions”, “public opinion” and “parents’ reactions”, accounting for 31% to 36% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 9% of the principals would not consider teaching moral and national education in their school as all (Tables 5 & 6). |
Table 5. Major concerns on teaching moral and national education |
[Q4] On whether to teach moral and national education in your school, what are your major concerns? |
|||
|
Frequency |
% of total responses (Base = 357 responses from 108 respondents) |
% of total sample |
The curriculum |
75 |
21.0% |
69.4% |
Directions of teaching |
53 |
14.8% |
49.1% |
Teaching materials |
49 |
13.7% |
45.4% |
|
|
|
|
Assessment criteria |
39 |
10.9% |
36.1% |
Teachers’ reactions |
35 |
9.8% |
32.4% |
Public opinion |
34 |
9.5% |
31.5% |
Parents’ reactions |
33 |
9.2% |
30.6% |
Learning motivations |
20 |
5.6% |
18.5% |
|
|
|
|
Will not consider at all |
10 |
2.8% |
9.3% |
Others (see Table 6) |
9 |
2.5% |
8.3% |
|
|
|
|
Total |
357 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
108 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
1 |
|
|
Table 6. Q4 (Other answers in exact wordings) |
|
Question 5 is also newly added this year and asked school principals whether they thought the policy on the Secondary School Places Allocation system should be continued. Results revealed that 47% of the principals thought it should be continued, while 53% believed it should not. The principals were then asked to provide some reasons for their choices. Among the 50 principals who thought the policy should be continued, 45 (90% of sub-sample) believe the policy could ensure “gender equality”. Follow at a considerable distance, 8 thought it could ensure “more even academic performance” of students. 7 each found it could “facilitates students’ social development” and believed “no problem with the policy”. As for why those 56 principals thought the policy should not be continued, 50 (91% of sub-sample) believed it was “unfair to boys due to their late development”. 26 each thought it would cause “gender imbalance” and “affect future studies and careers of the boys” while 14 believed it would “affect students’ social development” (Tables 7 to 10). |
Table 7. Opinions on the policy on the Secondary School Places Allocation system |
[Q5a] Since 2002, places for boys and girls are no longer handled separately in the Secondary School Places Allocation system. Do you think the policy should be continued? |
||
|
Frequency |
% of valid respondents |
Should continue |
50 |
47.2% |
Should not continue |
56 |
52.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
106 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
Base |
109 |
|
Missing case(s) |
3 |
|
Table 8. Reasons for continuing the policy |
[Q5b] [Only ask those who answered “should continue” in Q5a, base=50] Why? |
|||
|
Frequency |
% of total responses (Base = 68 responses from 50 respondents) |
% of total sample |
Gender equality |
45 |
66.2% |
90.0% |
More even academic performance |
8 |
11.8% |
16.0% |
Facilitates students’ social development |
7 |
10.3% |
14.0% |
No problem with the policy |
7 |
10.3% |
14.0% |
Facilitates teaching |
1 |
1.5% |
2.0% |
|
|
|
|
Total |
68 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
50 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
0 |
|
|
Table 9. Reasons for not continuing the policy |
[Q5c] [Only ask those who answered “should not continue” in Q5a, base=56] Why? |
|||
|
Frequency |
% of total responses (Base = 124 responses from 55 respondents) |
% of total sample |
Unfair to boys due to their late development |
50 |
40.3% |
90.9% |
Gender imbalance |
26 |
21.0% |
47.3% |
Affects future studies and careers of the boys |
26 |
21.0% |
47.3% |
Affects students’ social development |
14 |
11.3% |
25.5% |
Affects school facilities |
8 |
6.5% |
14.5% |
|
|
|
|
Total |
124 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
55 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
1 |
|
|
Table 10. Q5-Other comments on the policy on the Secondary School Places Allocation system (in exact wordings) |
|
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 102 valid respondents gave a mean score of 53.8 marks, which was subject to a standard error of 1.80 marks (Table 11). |
Table 11. 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 |
4 |
3.8 |
10 – 19 |
1 |
1.0 |
20 – 29 |
1 |
1.0 |
30 – 39 |
7 |
6.7 |
40 – 49 |
11 |
10.5 |
50 |
28 |
26.7 |
51 – 59 |
3 |
2.9 |
60 – 69 |
21 |
20.0 |
70 – 79 |
17 |
16.2 |
80 – 89 |
7 |
6.7 |
90 – 100 |
2 |
1.9 |
|
|
|
Don’t know |
3 |
2.9 |
|
|
|
Total |
105 |
100.0% |
Missing case(s) |
4 |
|
|
|
|
Mean |
53.8 |
|
Median |
50.0 |
|
Standard error of mean |
1.80 |
|
Valid base |
102 |
|
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 12. 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] |
|
