Research FindingsBack
|
The questionnaire comprised 8 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 95 principals, CUHK came second with an average score of 8.68, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 8.14. 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 |
0.16 |
95 |
99.0% |
CUHK |
8.68 |
0.12 |
96 |
100.0% |
HKUST |
8.14 |
0.13 |
96 |
100.0% |
PolyU |
7.03 |
0.10 |
95 |
99.0% |
HKBU |
6.55 |
0.11 |
96 |
100.0% |
CityU |
6.53 |
0.11 |
95 |
99.0% |
HKIEd |
5.96 |
0.13 |
93 |
96.9% |
LU |
5.60 |
0.13 |
89 |
92.7% |
HKSYU |
5.31 |
0.16 |
85 |
88.5% |
OUHK |
5.04 |
0.16 |
85 |
88.5% |
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 J.Y. Sung of CUHK topped the list with an average score of 8.85 rated by 95 respondents. Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST followed and attained a mean score of 7.67 rated by 86 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Timothy W. TONG of PolyU came third scoring 6.97 and rated by 76 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 |
8.85 |
0.15 |
95 |
99.0% |
HKUST – Prof. Tony F. CHAN |
7.67 |
0.14 |
86 |
89.6% |
PolyU – Prof. Timothy W. TONG |
6.97 |
0.15 |
76 |
79.2% |
HKBU – Prof. Albert CHAN |
6.95 |
0.16 |
82 |
85.4% |
HKU – Prof. Peter MATHIESON |
6.79 |
0.29 |
34 |
35.4% |
HKIEd – Prof. Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG |
6.73 |
0.17 |
79 |
82.3% |
CityU – Prof. Way KUO |
6.58 |
0.17 |
76 |
79.2% |
OUHK – Prof. Yuk-shan WONG |
6.16 |
0.18 |
62 |
64.6% |
LU – Prof. Leonard K. CHENG |
5.83 |
0.19 |
60 |
62.5% |
## The position of Principal for HKSYU was vacant during the survey period, so the respective question was dropped in 2014.
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 71% of respondents. The next tier included “social / interpersonal skills”, “commitment to society” and “global prospect / foresight”, accounting for and 61%, 54%, and 45% of respondents correspondingly (Tables 4 & 5). |
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 = 446 responses from 96 respondents) |
% of total sample |
|
|
|
|
Work attitude |
68 |
15.2% |
70.8% |
Social / interpersonal skills |
59 |
13.2% |
61.5% |
Commitment to society |
52 |
11.7% |
54.2% |
Global prospect / foresight |
43 |
9.6% |
44.8% |
|
|
|
|
Conduct, honesty |
38 |
8.5% |
39.6% |
Emotion stability |
37 |
8.3% |
38.5% |
Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua |
28 |
6.3% |
29.2% |
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability |
24 |
5.4% |
25.0% |
Communication skills |
19 |
4.3% |
19.8% |
Social / work experience |
18 |
4.0% |
18.8% |
Creativity |
17 |
3.8% |
17.7% |
Job opportunity |
17 |
3.8% |
17.7% |
|
|
|
|
Self-confidence |
8 |
1.8% |
8.3% |
Academic and professional knowledge |
8 |
1.8% |
8.3% |
Financial management |
4 |
0.9% |
4.2% |
Computer proficiency |
1 |
0.2% |
1.0% |
|
|
|
|
Others (see Table 5) |
4 |
0.9% |
4.2% |
Don’t know |
1 |
0.2% |
1.0% |
|
|
|
|
Total |
446 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
96 |
|
|
Missing case(s) |
0 |
|
|
Table 5. Q3 (Other answers in exact wordings) |
|
|
Question 4 is newly added this year and asked the principals the impact of the current secondary school curriculum on enhancing students’ civic awareness. Results revealed that 37% of the principals thought the impact was big, in which 1% thought the impact was very big while 36% thought it was quite big. 42% thought it “half-half”. 19% thought the impact was small, in which 15% thought it was “quite small” and 4% thought it was “very small” (Table 6). |
Table 6. The impact of the current secondary school curriculum on enhancing students’ civic awareness |
[Q4] How big or small do you think is the impact of the current secondary school curriculum on enhancing students’ civic awareness? [one answer allowed] |
|||||
|
Frequency |
% of valid respondents |
|||
Very big |
}Big |
1 |
}35 |
1.1% |
}36.8% |
Quite big |
34 |
35.8% |
|||
Half-half |
40 |
42.1% |
|||
Quite small |
}Small |
14 |
}18 |
14.7% |
}18.9% |
Very small |
4 |
4.2% |
|||
Don’t know |
2 |
2.1 |
|||
|
|
|
|||
Total |
95 |
100.0% |
|||
|
|
|
|||
Base |
96 |
|
|||
Missing case(s) |
1 |
|
|||
|
Question 5 is also newly added this year and asked school principals how much they supported the continual implementation of “integrated education” in secondary schools. Results revealed that 12% of the principals supported the continual implementation of “integrated education” in secondary schools. 51% thought it “half-half”. 37% opposed this, in which 21% quite opposed and 16% very much opposed (Table 7).
|
Table 7. Opinion on the continual implementation of “integrated education” in secondary schools |
[Q5] How much do you support or oppose to the continual implementation of “integrated education” in secondary schools? |
|||||
|
Frequency |
% of valid respondents |
|||
Very much support |
} Support |
-- |
}11 |
-- |
}11.6% |
Quite support |
11 |
11.6% |
|||
Half-half |
48 |
50.5% |
|||
Quite oppose |
} Oppose |
20 |
35 |
21.1% |
}36.8% |
Very much oppose |
15
|
15.8% |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don’t know |
1 |
1.1% |
|||
|
|
|
|||
Total |
95 |
100.0% |
|||
|
|
|
|||
Base |
96 |
|
|||
Missing case(s) |
1 |
|
|||
|
Question 5 is also newly added this year and asked school principals how much they supported the implementation of “small class teaching” in secondary schools. Results revealed that 80% of the principals supported the implementation of “small class teaching”, in which 42% very much supported while 38% quite supported. 19% thought it “half-half”. 1.1% opposed this (Table 8). |
Table 8. Opinion the implementation of “small class teaching” in secondary schools |
[Q6] How much do you support or oppose to the implementation of “small class teaching” in secondary schools? [one answer allowed] |
|||||
|
Frequency |
% of valid respondents |
|||
Very much support |
} Support |
40 |
}76 |
42.1% |
}80.0% |
Quite support |
36 |
37.9% |
|||
Half-half |
18 |
18.9% |
|||
Quite oppose |
} Oppose |
1 |
1 |
1.1% |
}1.1% |
Very much oppose |
--
|
-- |
|||
Don’t know |
|
-- |
-- |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Total |
95 |
100.0% |
|||
|
|
|
|||
Base |
96 |
|
|||
Missing case(s) |
1 |
|
|||
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 89 valid respondents gave a mean score of 50.1 marks, which was subject to a standard error of 1.95 marks (Table 11).
Table 9. 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 |
4.3% |
10 – 19 |
-- |
-- |
20 – 29 |
4 |
4.3% |
30 – 39 |
7 |
7.4% |
40 – 49 |
14 |
14.9% |
50 |
20 |
21.3% |
51 – 59 |
4 |
4.3% |
60 – 69 |
20 |
21.3% |
70 – 79 |
12 |
12.8% |
80 – 89 |
3 |
3.2% |
90 – 100 |
1 |
1.1% |
|
|
|
Don’t know |
5 |
5.3% |
|
|
|
Total |
94 |
100.0% |
Missing case(s) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Mean |
50.7 |
|
Median |
50.0 |
|
Standard error of mean |
1.95 |
|
Valid base |
89 |
|
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 10 below for the submissions received.
Table 10. 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. 政府應增加資助大學學位。2. 教育局應給予學校更大自主權，特別是資源的運用 |
2. An open review on the effectiveness & efficiency of the EDB, including the measuring of the current director of education, should be conducted. |
3. Our education system is now like a herd without a head bull. |
4. Q7 太濶，這個設問難評 |
5. 如希望融合教育發揮果效，政府必須增撥資源！公民教育的推展深化不單需要正規學校課程，更需要善用媒體，為整個社會注入正面積極元素！ |
6. 我們需要良好道德教育及有遠見的領導者去帶領香港的教育，故次對教育局局長的背景及個人履歷，他並不適合擔當此工作！主流大學的校長們，對培育未來社會人才和領袖任重道遠！他們更需注意如何避免「 港孩治港」， 未來社會領袖必須有預見力，有遠象，高道德要求和能懂得造就其他人的領導！眼光要放眼世界，並建基於香港與中國！ |
7. 每所中學都會盡力去提升學生的公民意識、品格、責任感等等。然而社會與家庭跟學校所傳講要求的不一致。年青人最終傾向我行我素或以個人利益為先，影響其就業表現。 |
8. 社會風氣，政治環境，對教育局及教育政策影響很大，令教育局無長遠發展方案！ |
9. 津貼中學長期欠缺資源問題一直未解決！ |
10. 香港教育制度，官弱民強，大學，中小學各自為教育付出，艱苦經營，緊貼教育需要，範式轉移，尋找及實踐湊效的方法。惟教育局未能信任及支持院校，學校的發展常在行政撥款，或行政措施造成困難，耗損老師時間，窮於應付。 |
11. 香港學童有較均等接受教育的機會， 且有關教育的質素差異不大。而教育的效益亦高，此乃值得自豪之處，然香港的優勢恐漸下降。原因：1.人才是香港重要資產，然政府對青少年的栽培欠全面的規劃，沒跨局調整政策。2.各地大力投資教育的同時，政府卻吝嗇對教育的投放。3.AO思維，衡「功」量「值」主導了教育。 |
12. 教育局欠缺長遠的規劃，任由學校在市場的機制下運作，淘汰那些具使命而又肩負教育第三組別學生的學校，長遠會對社會的穩定構成威脅，因此給予教育局極低的分數 |
13. 教育局局長及副局長必須是教育專業出身，避免外行領導内行。 這兩個職位應該如教師和校長一樣，有最低入職要求。 |
14. 教育局局長應由教育事業出身人士擔任 |
15. 現時教育局欠規劃，無論是長遠，中期及短期也沒有詳盡規劃，教育局只看資源，不看人才，又不諮詢前綫教育工作者意見。 |
16. 補充Q4: 除課程外，社會風氣也是影響因素之一。 補充Q5：融合有其意義，但部分類別同學對學校課堂、活動等滋擾很大。補充Ｑ６：小班有好處，但不是必須，因爲質素好，勤奮的同學，大班至四十人也不嫌多。反之，無心向學，基礎弱，破壞秩序的同學，即使小班也無補於事。補充Ｑ７：政策制度均好，但推行者 (指學校) 是否能貫徹到底才是能夠成功的主因。 |
17. 融合教育：理念好，資源配套不足 |
