Abstract
The General University Requirements (GUR) at The Polytechnic University of Hong Kong (PolyU) has been developed and implemented since the 2012–13 academic year under the reform of education system in Hong Kong. To examine the effectiveness of GUR at PolyU, the present study investigated student’s subjective perception in the academic years of 2012–13 and 2013–14 using the Student Feedback Questionnaires. Results showed that the GUR subjects were generally well-received by the students. Besides, students held different perceptions of different GUR components, and there was improvement in students’ learning experience and staff teaching over time. While there was an increased satisfaction with Language and Communication Requirements subjects, there was a decline in satisfaction with Service Learning subjects.
References
1. Osterlind SJ. A national review of scholastic achievement in general education: how are we doing and why should we care? Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1997.Search in Google Scholar
2. Witt DH. Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe. Boston: Center for International Higher Education and the Program in Higher Education, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
3. Marginson S. Education and public policy in Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.10.1017/CBO9780511559389Search in Google Scholar
4. AAC&U. Trends and emerging practices in general education. In: Wehlburg CM, editor. Integrated general education: new directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
5. Peterson S. GED success: 2003. Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s Guide, 2003.Search in Google Scholar
6. Boyer EL, Arthur L. A quest for common learning: the aims of general education. A Carnegie Foundation Essay. Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1981.Search in Google Scholar
7. South China Morning Post. SCMP opinion leader survey [Internet]. Hong Kong. 2006. Available at: http://www.scmp.com/article/562719/opinion-leaders-survey. Accessed on June 20, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
8. University Grant Committee. Hong Kong higher education to make a difference to move with the times, 2004. Available at: http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/doc/ugc/publication/report/policy_document_e.pd. Accessed on June 20, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
9. Chen YH. The study of core competency learning and outcome assessment in general education. Paper presented at the proceeding at General Education and University Curriculum Reform: an International Conference in Hong Kong (pp 99–104). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong America Center, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
10. Kember D, Leung DY. Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaires. Assess Eval High Educ 2008;33:341–53.10.1080/02602930701563070Search in Google Scholar
11. Educational Development Centre: The PolyU Student Feedback Questionnaire (SFQ) System. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 2012. Available at: URL. http://edc.polyu.edu.hk/sfq-collect.htm. Accessed on June 21, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
12. Kwan K. How fair are student ratings in assessing the teaching performance of university teachers? Assess Eval Higher Educ 1999;24:181–95.10.1080/0260293990240207Search in Google Scholar
13. Shek DT, Yu L, Wu FK, Chai WY. General university requirements at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: evaluation findings based on student focus groups. Assess Eval High Educ. Epub 2014 October 1. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.960362.10.1080/02602938.2014.960362Search in Google Scholar
14. Shek DT, Yu L, Wu FK, Chai WY. Teachers’ views of a new general education program in Hong Kong: a qualitative study. Int J Adolesc Med Health, in press.Search in Google Scholar
15. Shek DT, Yu L, Wu FK, Ng CS. General education program in a new 4-year university curriculum in Hong Kong: findings based on multiple evaluation strategies. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2015;14:377–84.10.1515/ijdhd-2015-0459Search in Google Scholar
16. Shek DT, Ma CM. Do university students change after taking a subject on leadership and intrapersonal development? Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2014;13:451–6.10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0341Search in Google Scholar
17. Shek DT, Yu L. Post-course subjective outcome evaluation of a subject on leadership and intrapersonal development for university students in Hong Kong. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2014;12:193–201.Search in Google Scholar
18. Feldman KA. Course characteristics and college students’ ratings of their teachers: what we know and what we don’t. Res High Educ 1978;9:199–242.10.1007/BF00976997Search in Google Scholar
19. Marsh H. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. J Educ Psychol 1984;76:707–54.10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.707Search in Google Scholar
20. Smith RA, Cranton PA. Students’ perceptions of teaching skills and overall effectiveness across instructional settings. Res High Educ 1992;33:747–64.10.1007/BF00992056Search in Google Scholar
21. Cashin WE. Students do rate different academic fields differently. In: Theall M, Franklin J, editors. Student ratings of instruction: issues for improving practice (new directions for teaching and learning). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1990.Search in Google Scholar
22. Shek DT. Is subjective outcome evaluation related to objective outcome evaluation? Insights from a longitudinal study in Hong Kong. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2014;27:S50–6.10.1016/j.jpag.2014.02.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2015 by De Gruyter
