Focus group evaluation of teachers’ views on a new general education program in Hong Kong

Daniel T.L. Shek; Lu Yu; Xinli Chi

doi:10.1515/ijamh-2017-3009

Article

Focus group evaluation of teachers’ views on a new general education program in Hong Kong

Daniel T.L. Shek , Lu Yu and Xinli Chi

Published/Copyright: June 14, 2016

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health Volume 29 Issue 1

Abstract

Using teachers’ focus group interviews (n=40), this study examined the impact of the General University Requirements (GUR) implemented at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU). Results showed that teachers were generally satisfied with the GUR subjects and its implementation in its second year. Teachers regarded the design of GUR subjects was good and the students generally welcomed the subjects. Interactive teaching and learning methods adopted in GUR subjects such as fieldwork, hands-on projects, and team debates were highly appreciated by the respondents. Teachers also reflected that the GUR had promoted the intrapersonal and interpersonal development of the students. However, several challenges were also reported by teachers, including the difficulty level of Freshman Seminar subjects and lack of interaction in some GUR subjects, which suggested directions for further improvements.

Keywords: focus group; general education; Hong Kong; qualitative evaluation; university education

Corresponding author: Daniel T.L. Shek, PhD, Associate Vice President (Undergraduate Programme) and Chair Professor of Applied Social Sciences, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hunghom, Hong Kong, P.R. China

References

1. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. The program evaluation standards. London: Sage, 1994.Search in Google Scholar

2. Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text. London: Sage, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

3. Shek DTL, Sun RC, Tang CY. Focus group evaluation from the perspective of program implementers: findings based on the secondary 2 program. ScientificWorldJ 2009;9:992–1002.10.1100/tsw.2009.117Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Thompson A, Otaiba SA, Yen L, et al. Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. J Educ Psychol 2001;93:251–67.10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.251Search in Google Scholar

5. Shek DTL, Ma CMS. Program implementers’ evaluation of the project P.A.T.H.S.: findings based on different datasets over time. ScientificWorldJ 2012;2012:918437.10.1100/2012/918437Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

6. Ali MM, Mustapha R, Jelas ZM. An empirical study on teachers’ perceptions towards inclusive education in Malaysia. Int J Spec Educ 2006;21:36–44.Search in Google Scholar

7. Edwards MC, Briers GE. Cooperating teachers’ perceptions of important elements of the student teaching experience: a focus group approach with quantitative follow-up. J Agr Educ 2001;42:30–41.10.5032/jae.2001.03030Search in Google Scholar

8. Krainer K. Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. TME 2014;11:49–60.10.54870/1551-3440.1291Search in Google Scholar

9. Flannery DJ, Torquati J. An elementary school substance abuse prevention program: teacher and administrator perspectives. J Drug Educ 1993;23:387–97.10.2190/3N63-D19V-CJ0G-VLUJSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

10. 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 2015;40:1017–31.10.1080/02602938.2014.960362Search in Google Scholar

11. 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 2017;29:57–65.10.1515/ijamh-2017-3008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Shek DT, Yu L, Ngai J. Evaluation of a general education program in Hong Kong: secondary data analyses based on student feedback questionnaires. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2015;14:401–6.10.1515/ijdhd-2015-0462Search in Google Scholar

13. Ranaweera AM. Relevance, balance and integration of the content of general education: achievements, trends and issues: a synthesis. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

14. Gibbs G, Coffey M. The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learn High Educ 2004;5:87–100.10.1177/1469787404040463Search in Google Scholar

15. Lucas SB. Who am I? The influence of teacher beliefs on the incorporation of instructional technology by higher education faculty. Dissertation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University Alabama, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

16. Nind M. Teachers’ understanding of interactive approaches in special education. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2000;47:183–99.10.1080/713671111Search in Google Scholar

17. Nind M, Wearmouth J, Collins J, Hall K, Rix J, et al. A systematic review of pedagogical approaches that can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms with a particular focus on peer group interactive approaches. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

18. Chen Y, Hoshower LB. Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: an assessment of student perception and motivation. Assess Eval High Educ 2010;28:71–88.10.1080/02602930301683Search in Google Scholar

19. Dolcourt J. Commitment to change: a strategy for promoting educational effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health 2000;20:156–63.10.1002/chp.1340200304Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Shek DT, Sun RC. Process evaluation of a leadership and intrapersonal development subject for university students. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2013;12:203–11.10.1515/ijdhd-2013-0018Search in Google Scholar

21. Schempp PG, Manross D, Tan SK, Fincher MD. Subject expertise and teachers’ knowledge. J Teach Phys Educ 1998;17:342–56.10.1123/jtpe.17.3.342Search in Google Scholar

22. Shek DL, 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 Human Dev 2015;14:377–84.10.1515/ijdhd-2015-0459Search in Google Scholar

23. Hennink M, Hutter I, Bailey A. Qualitative research methods. London: Sage, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2015-1-14

Accepted: 2015-2-18

Published Online: 2016-6-14

Published in Print: 2017-2-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2017-3009

Keywords for this article

focus group; general education; Hong Kong; qualitative evaluation; university education