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 8.09, rated by 78 principals, CUHK came second with an average score of 8.03, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 7.87. 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	8.09	0.19	78	98.7%
CUHK	8.03	0.17	78	98.7%
HKUST	7.87	0.17	77	97.5%
PolyU	6.82	0.13	77	97.5%
CityU	6.55	0.12	77	97.5%
HKBU	6.36	0.14	76	96.2%
EdUHK ^[1]	6.21	0.15	75	94.9%
LU	5.42	0.19	72	91.1%
HKSYU	5.28	0.18	71	89.9%
OUHK	5.14	0.19	73	92.4%

[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 2008-2016

	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. HKU	8.49	0.14	8.37	0.14	8.56	0.12	8.64	0.15	8.33	0.18
2. CUHK	8.38	0.13	8.23	0.13	8.14	0.11	8.33	0.15	8.23	0.15
3. HKUST	7.69	0.11	7.74	0.11	7.82	0.11	7.94	0.15	8.00	0.15
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^[2]	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^[3]	--	--	--	--	--	--	4.84	0.17	5.03	0.19

	201 3 Survey		201 4 Survey		201 5 Survey		201 6 Survey
	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	Average	Standard error	No. of raters	Recognition
1. HKU	8.76	0.14	8.76	0.16	8.64	0.12	8.09	0.19	78	98.7%
2. CUHK	8.51	0.13	8.68	0.12	8.51	0.11	8.03	0.17	78	98.7%
3. HKUST	8.10	0.11	8.14	0.13	8.02	0.10	7.87	0.17	77	97.5%
4. PolyU	7.16	0.10	7.03	0.10	6.88	0.11	6.82	0.13	77	97.5%
5. CityU	6.64	0.10	6.53	0.11	6.40	0.11	6.55	0.12	77	97.5%
6. HKBU	6.64	0.09	6.55	0.11	6.32	0.11	6.36	0.14	76	96.2%
7. EdUHK^[2]	6.06	0.11	5.96	0.13	5.87	0.13	6.21	0.15	75	94.9%
8. LU	5.80	0.12	5.60	0.13	5.14	0.14	5.42	0.19	72	91.1%
9. HKSYU	5.49	0.14	5.31	0.16	4.97	0.14	5.28	0.18	71	89.9%
10. OUHK^[3]	5.27	0.14	5.04	0.16	4.74	0.14	5.14	0.19	73	92.4%

[2] On 27 May 2016, HKIEd was formally renamed The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK). Therefore, in this survey, “HKIEd” was used during the survey period of 12 to 26 May while “EdUHK” was used on 27 May.
[3] Newly added in 2011.

Chart 1 - Overall Performance Ratings of Institutions, 2008-2016

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 8.35 rated by 77 respondents. Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST and Professor Peter MATHIESON of HKU came second and third, with mean scores of 7.51 each as rated by 69 and 75 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 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? ^[4]
	Average	Standard error	No of raters	Recognition
CUHK – Prof. Joseph J.Y. SUNG	8.35	0.18	77	97.5%
HKUST – Prof. Tony F. CHAN	7.51^[5]	0.17	69	87.3%
HKU – Prof. Peter MATHIESON	7.51^[5]	0.19	75	94.9%
EdUHK – Prof. Stephen Y.L. CHEUNG	7.10	0.15	72	91.1%
PolyU – Prof. Timothy W. TONG	6.94	0.12	65	82.3%
CityU – Prof. Way KUO	6.82	0.13	68	86.1%
HKBU – Prof. Roland T. CHIN	6.49	0.19	61	77.2%
OUHK – Prof. Yuk-shan WONG	6.43	0.14	63	79.7%
LU – Prof. Leonard K. CHENG	5.91	0.20	64	81.0%

[4] The position of Principal for HKSYU was vacant during the survey period, so the respective question was dropped in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
[5] In four decimal places, the rating of Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST and Professor Peter MATHIESON of HKU are 7.5072 and 7.5067.

The next question asked the respondents’ opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Results showed that “global prospect / foresight” was most commonly cited, as chosen by 62% of respondents. The next tier included “work attitude”, “social / interpersonal skills”, “emotion stability”, “commitment to society” and “critical thinking and problem-solving ability”, accounting for 59%, 54%, 49%, 43% and 41% of respondents correspondingly (Tables 5 & 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? You may check as many choices as you like.
	Frequency	% of total responses (Base = 399 responses from 79 respondents)	% of total sample (Base = 79)
Global prospect / foresight	49	12.3%	62.0%
Work attitude	47	11.8%	59.5%
Social / interpersonal skills	43	10.8%	54.4%
Emotion stability	39	9.8%	49.4%
Commitment to society	34	8.5%	43.0%
Critical thinking and problem-solving ability	32	8.0%	40.5%
Conduct, honesty	30	7.5%	38.0%
Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua	24	6.0%	30.4%
Communication skills	24	6.0%	30.4%
Creativity	17	4.3%	21.5%
Social / work experience	15	3.8%	19.0%
Job opportunity	13	3.3%	16.5%
Financial management	11	2.8%	13.9%
Academic and professional knowledge	9	2.3%	11.4%
Self-confidence	5	1.3%	6.3%

Others (see Table 5)	6	1.5%	7.6%
Not lack of anything	--	--	--
Don’t know	1	0.3%	1.3%

Total	399	100.0%

Base	79
Missing case(s)	0

Table 6. Q3 (Other answers in exact wordings)

宏觀思想、整體概念
對其他意見的包容
對國家民族的認識和承擔
對國家的熱誠
對祖國的認識和認同
應變能力、抗逆能力、捱得苦的態度及堅持

Question 4 asked the principals the impact of the current secondary school curriculum on enhancing students’ civic awareness. Results revealed that 30% of the principals thought the impact was useful, 39% thought it “half-half” and 29% thought the impact was useless (Table 7).

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 = 79)
Very useful	}Useful	2	}24	2.5%	}30.4%
Quite useful		22		27.8%
Half-half		31		39.2%
Quite useless	}Useless	14	}23	17.7%	}29.1%
Very useless		9		11.4%

Don’t know		1		1.3%

Total		79		100.0%

Base		79
Missing case(s)		0

Question 8 is newly added this year and asked school principals whether they thought the existence of the “Territory-wide System Assessment” (TSA) is valuable or not. Results revealed that 49% of the principals thought the existence value of TSA was high, 31% thought it “half-half”, and 19% thought it low (Table 8).

Table 8. Opinion on the existence value of the “Territory-wide System Assessment” (TSA)

[Q5] How high or low do you think is the existence value of the “Territory-wide System Assessment” (TSA)? [one answer allowed]
		Frequency		% of valid respondents (Base = 78)
Very high	} High	4	}38	5.1%	}48.7%
Quite high		34		43.6%
Half-half		24		30.8%
Quite low	} Low	8	}15	10.3%	}19.2%
Very low		7		9.0%

Don’t know		1		1.3%

Total		78		100.0%

Base		79
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 77 valid respondents gave a mean score of 48.3 marks, which was subject to a standard error of 2.28 marks (Table 9 & 10).

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 (Base = 79)
0 – 9	3	3.8%
10 – 19	1	1.3%
20 – 29	5	6.3%
30 – 39	12	15.2%
40 – 49	13	16.5%
50	11	13.9%
51 – 59	--	--
60 – 69	19	24.1%
70 – 79	6	7.6%
80 – 89	7	8.9%
90 – 100	--	--

Don’t know	2	2.5%

Total	79	100.0%
Missing case(s)	0

Mean	48.3
Median	50.0
Standard error of mean	2.28
Valid base	77

Table 10. Time-series Figures for Confidence in the Hong Kong education system 2008-2016

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Mean	54.4	56.2	52.2	49.9	54.4	53.8	50.7	48.8	48.3
Median	55.0	60.0	50.0	50.0	55.0	50.0	50.0	50.0	50.0
Standard error of mean	1.69	1.58	1.75	1.81	1.60	1.80	1.95	1.96	2.28
Valid base	111	109	114	104	95	102	89	84	77

Chart 2- Confidence in the Hong Kong education system, 2008-2016

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 11 below for the submissions received.

Table 11. 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. The HR system in primary and secondary schools needs a major overhaul. At present, the under-performed teachers in schools, especially those in the aided schools, are very hard to be disciplined or dismissed. This significantly brings down the quality of education at school. The EDB has never faced it and dealt with it!

2. Very disappointed to the Education policy in HKSAR EDB. Always stubborn to opinions!

3. Q4、Q5及Q6與大專院校排名無關

4. 中學十年課改，帶來中學生價值失落十年，特別在於家國觀念的崩潰，影響深遠！

5. 問卷內容過於簡短及量少，令人質疑數條問題能否達到與研究主題相符的效果。

6. 大學生應多學習，從前人或長輩中獲取經驗，不要自以為是，少搞政治！香港大學的學生更需注意，勿讓香港沉淪。

7. 大部分官員不熟識教育，未能定立合適的教育政策，外行領導內行。

8. 投放更多資源在教育方面，尤其是在弱勢社群及學校，讓老師有穩定的工作環境而學生亦有穩定的學習環境。

9. 整體教育系統缺乏道德、教育及藝術情操訓練

10. 減少大學學位，但增加對學位的資助。另外增加青年的職業培訓學校。

11. 補充Q4︰初中課程的「公共事務」和政府架構和權利與義務等內容嚴重缺乏！