香港高中教育新学制下中学离校生的一般能力评估

IF 1.2 4区 法学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
K. O. Chan, Maggie Ng, J. So, V. Chan
{"title":"香港高中教育新学制下中学离校生的一般能力评估","authors":"K. O. Chan, Maggie Ng, J. So, V. Chan","doi":"10.1108/pap-07-2020-0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeA new academic structure for senior secondary and higher education was introduced to Hong Kong in 2009/2010. This paper aims to: (1) compare the cohort from the old academic structure (Cohort 2010) and the cohort from the new academic structure (Cohort 2015) on the 14 categories of generic competencies; and (2) compare these attributes among students from different divisions in a tertiary institution in Hong Kong.Design/methodology/approachSelf-Assessment of All-Round Development (SAARD) questionnaires were distributed to students who took the two-year sub-degree programmes offered by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 2010 and 2015 on a self-administered basis. A total of 4,424 students have returned the questionnaires. Data were analyzed with t-test to compare between the two cohorts.FindingsWhen comparing Cohort 2015 with Cohort 2010, significantly higher scores were observed on five areas such as global outlook and healthy lifestyle (p<0.05). Significantly lower scores were observed on the other five areas such as problem solving, critical thinking and leadership (p<0.05). Students from all divisions unanimously showed higher perceived rating on social and national responsibility but lower perceived rating on leadership (p<0.05).Originality/ValueThe elimination of one public examination, the newly included components such as Other Learning Experiences (OLE) and the compulsory Liberal Studies were believed to contribute partially to the diverse responses of the two cohorts. The dramatic change of the curriculum has not changed the examination culture in Hong Kong which may hinder the development of generic skills among students.","PeriodicalId":34601,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of generic competencies among secondary school leavers from the new academic structure for senior secondary education in Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"K. O. Chan, Maggie Ng, J. So, V. Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/pap-07-2020-0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeA new academic structure for senior secondary and higher education was introduced to Hong Kong in 2009/2010. This paper aims to: (1) compare the cohort from the old academic structure (Cohort 2010) and the cohort from the new academic structure (Cohort 2015) on the 14 categories of generic competencies; and (2) compare these attributes among students from different divisions in a tertiary institution in Hong Kong.Design/methodology/approachSelf-Assessment of All-Round Development (SAARD) questionnaires were distributed to students who took the two-year sub-degree programmes offered by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 2010 and 2015 on a self-administered basis. A total of 4,424 students have returned the questionnaires. Data were analyzed with t-test to compare between the two cohorts.FindingsWhen comparing Cohort 2015 with Cohort 2010, significantly higher scores were observed on five areas such as global outlook and healthy lifestyle (p<0.05). Significantly lower scores were observed on the other five areas such as problem solving, critical thinking and leadership (p<0.05). Students from all divisions unanimously showed higher perceived rating on social and national responsibility but lower perceived rating on leadership (p<0.05).Originality/ValueThe elimination of one public examination, the newly included components such as Other Learning Experiences (OLE) and the compulsory Liberal Studies were believed to contribute partially to the diverse responses of the two cohorts. The dramatic change of the curriculum has not changed the examination culture in Hong Kong which may hinder the development of generic skills among students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-07-2020-0033\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-07-2020-0033","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的香港于2009/2010年引入新的高中及高等教育学术架构。本文旨在:(1)比较旧学术结构的队列(2010年队列)和新学术结构的群组(2015年队列)的14类通用能力;(2)比较香港高等院校不同院系学生的这些特质。向参加专业及继续教育学院两年制亚学位课程的学生发放设计/方法/方法全面发展自我评估(SAARD)问卷,香港理工大学于2010年和2015年自行管理。共有4424名学生返回了问卷。数据采用t检验进行分析,以比较两个队列。研究结果2015年与2010年相比,在全球观和健康生活方式等五个领域的得分显著较高(p<0.05)。在解决问题、,批判性思维和领导力(p<0.05)。来自所有部门的学生在社会和国家责任方面一致表现出较高的感知评分,但在领导力方面表现出较低的感知评分(p<0.05),新纳入的组成部分,如其他学习经历(OLE)和必修通识教育,被认为在一定程度上有助于这两个群体的不同反应。课程的急剧变化并没有改变香港的考试文化,这可能会阻碍学生通用技能的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of generic competencies among secondary school leavers from the new academic structure for senior secondary education in Hong Kong
PurposeA new academic structure for senior secondary and higher education was introduced to Hong Kong in 2009/2010. This paper aims to: (1) compare the cohort from the old academic structure (Cohort 2010) and the cohort from the new academic structure (Cohort 2015) on the 14 categories of generic competencies; and (2) compare these attributes among students from different divisions in a tertiary institution in Hong Kong.Design/methodology/approachSelf-Assessment of All-Round Development (SAARD) questionnaires were distributed to students who took the two-year sub-degree programmes offered by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 2010 and 2015 on a self-administered basis. A total of 4,424 students have returned the questionnaires. Data were analyzed with t-test to compare between the two cohorts.FindingsWhen comparing Cohort 2015 with Cohort 2010, significantly higher scores were observed on five areas such as global outlook and healthy lifestyle (p<0.05). Significantly lower scores were observed on the other five areas such as problem solving, critical thinking and leadership (p<0.05). Students from all divisions unanimously showed higher perceived rating on social and national responsibility but lower perceived rating on leadership (p<0.05).Originality/ValueThe elimination of one public examination, the newly included components such as Other Learning Experiences (OLE) and the compulsory Liberal Studies were believed to contribute partially to the diverse responses of the two cohorts. The dramatic change of the curriculum has not changed the examination culture in Hong Kong which may hinder the development of generic skills among students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
30
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信