Evaluation of the general university requirements: what did students say?

References

1. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. General University Requirements (GUR) at PolyU. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2014. Available at: http://www.polyu.edu.hk/ous/student_GUR.html.Search in Google Scholar

2. Curry JM. Cultural challenges in Hong Kong to the implementation of effective general education. Teach High Educ 2012;17:223–30.10.1080/13562517.2012.658565Search in Google Scholar

3. Hanstedt P. Hong Kong’s experiment in integrative teaching and learning. Liberal Educ 2010;96:18–23.Search in Google Scholar

4. Hong Kong Education Commission. Learning for life, learning through life: reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Commission, 2000. Availabe at: http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/annex/Edu-reform-eng.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

5. Jaffee D. Building general education with Hong Kong characteristics. Int Educ 2013;42:41–57.Search in Google Scholar

6. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Freshman Seminar. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2011. Availabe at: https://www2.polyu.edu.hk/4yearug/Staff/ug_content.html?ug2_seminar.Search in Google Scholar

7. Yuen WW. General University Requirements at PolyU: the underlying principles and process of development. In: General Education and University Curriculum Reform: An International Conference in Hong Kong; 2012 Jun 12–14. Availabe at: http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/edge/conference2012/presentation_material/12-PPT.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

8. Shek TL, Law YM. Evaluation of a subject on leadership and intrapersonal development: views of the students based on qualitative evaluation. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2014;13: 435–41.10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0339Search in Google Scholar

9. Shek TL, Ma MS. 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

10. Shek TL, 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;13: 457–64.10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0342Search in Google Scholar

11. Shek TL, Yu L, Wu KY, 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

12. Wright SP, Hendershott A. Using focus groups to obtain students’ perceptions. Nebraska: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1992. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=podimproveacad.Search in Google Scholar

13. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

14. Bamberger M, Rugh J, Mabry L. RealWorld evaluation: working under budget, time, data, and political constraints, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

15. Bourke B, Bray NJ, Horton CC. Approaches to the core curriculum: an exploratory analysis of top liberal arts and doctoral-granting institutions. J Gen Educ 2009;58:219–40.10.2307/jgeneeduc.58.4.0219Search in Google Scholar

16. Feldman KA. The superior college teacher from the students’ view. Res High Educ 1976;5:243–88.10.1007/BF00991967Search in Google Scholar

17. Lowman J. Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1984.Search in Google Scholar

18. Sherman T, Armistead LP, Fowler F, Barksdale MA, Reif G. The quest for excellence in university teaching. J High Educ 1987;58:66–84.10.2307/1981391Search in Google Scholar

19. Gaff JG. General education today: a critical analysis of controversies, practices, and reforms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1983.Search in Google Scholar

20. Noddings N. The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992.Search in Google Scholar

21. Lumpkin A. Caring teachers the key to student learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record 2007;43:158–60.10.1080/00228958.2007.10516474Search in Google Scholar

22. Bonner J. Taking a stand as a student-centered research university: active and collaborative learning meets scholarship of teaching at the University of Alabama. J Gen Educ 2010;59:183–92.10.5325/jgeneeduc.59.4.0183Search in Google Scholar

23. Gaff JG. New life for the college curriculum: assessing achievements and furthering progress in the reform of general education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1991.Search in Google Scholar

24. Ratcliff JL. Re-envisioning the change process in general education. New Dir Higher Educ 2004;2004:97–108.10.1002/he.142Search in Google Scholar

25. Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 1998;66:64–74.10.1119/1.18809Search in Google Scholar

26. Knight JK, Wood WB. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 2005;4:298–310.10.1187/05-06-0082Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

27. Bonwell C, Eison J. Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1991. Availabe at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

28. Friedman SJ. Outcomes, learning, and assessment in general education. University General Education Bulletin 2009 [cited 2015 Jan 15];(5):1–43. Availabe at: http://www5.cuhk.edu.hk/oge/oge_media/rcge/Docs/Journal/Issue_05/01_stephenfriedman.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

29. Altbach PG, Lewis LS. Professional attitudes: an international survey. Change 1995;27:50–7.10.1080/00091383.1995.10544676Search in Google Scholar

30. Mulryan-Kyne C. Teaching large classes at college and university level: challenges and opportunities. Teach High Educ 2010;15:175–85.10.1080/13562511003620001Search in Google Scholar