General education program in a new 4-year university curriculum in Hong Kong: findings based on multiple evaluation strategies

References

1. Jaffee D. The general education initiative in Hong Kong: organized contradictions and emerging tensions. High Educ 2011. Available at: https://www.unf.edu/~djaffee/Higher%20Education-HK%20article-final.pdf.10.1007/s10734-011-9487-ySearch in Google Scholar

2. Aloi SL, Gardner WS, Lusher AL. A framework for assessing general education outcomes within the majors. J Gen Educ 2003;52:237–52.10.1353/jge.2004.0009Search in Google Scholar

3. Allen RC. The employability of university students in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Education: recent statistical evidence. 1998. Available at: http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/12102/1/dp9815.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

4. Laird TF, Niskodẻ-Dossett AS, Kuh GD. What general education courses contribute to essential learning outcomes. J Gen Educ 2009;58:65−84.10.1353/jge.0.0037Search in Google Scholar

5. Chan FT, Leung S, Cheng S. The challenges and opportunities of sub-degree general education development under the new academic structure. In: Corrigan P, editor. General education and university curriculum reform: an international conference in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong America Center, 2012. Available at: http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/edge/conference2012/docs/GE_Conference_Proceedings.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

6. Association of American Colleges and Universities. College learning for the new global century: a report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise. Washington, DC, 2007. Available at: http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

7. Association of American Colleges and Universities. The LEAP vision for learning: outcomes, practices, impact, and employers’ views. Washington, DC, 2011. Available at: https://www.aacu.org/LEAP/documents/leap_vision_summary.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

8. Xing J, Ng PS, Cheng CY, editors. General education and the development of global citizenship in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China: not merely icing on the cake. London: Routledge, 2012.10.4324/9780203083154Search in Google Scholar

9. Shek DT, Yu L, Wu FK, Chen WY. General university requirements at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: evaluation findings based on student focus groups. Assess Eval High Educ, 2014. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.960362. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02602938.2014.960362.Search in Google Scholar

10. Siu AM, Shek DT. Validation of the Interpersonal reactivity index in a Chinese context. Res Social Work Prac 2005;15:118–26.10.1177/1049731504270384Search in Google Scholar

11. Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS 1980;10:85–104.Search in Google Scholar

12. Litzinger TA, Lee SH, Wise JC, Felder RM. A study of the reliability and validity of Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition. Portland, OR, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

13. Felder RM, Silverman LK. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ 1988;78:674–81.Search in Google Scholar

14. Shek DT, Siu AM, Lee TY. The Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale: a validation study. Res Social Work Pract 2007;17:380–91.10.1177/1049731506296196Search in Google Scholar

15. Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP. Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res High Educ 2006;47:1–32.10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9Search in Google Scholar

16. Kuh GD. The national survey of student engagement: conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, In: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, 2001:1−26.Search in Google Scholar

17. Shi JH, Wen W. Tsinghua University Undergraduate Education Survey Report, 2010. Tsinghua J Educ 2012;33:6–16.Search in Google Scholar

18. Wang S. The impact on student learning of student engagement in research universities - Based on “NSSE-China” 2009 data analysis. Tsinghua J Educ 2011;32:24–32.Search in Google Scholar

19. Arum R, Roksa J, Cho E. Improving undergraduate learning: findings and policy recommendations from the SSRC-CLA longitudinal project. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

20. Klein S, Benjamin R, Shavelson R, Bolus R. The collegiate learning assessment: facts and fantasies. Eval Rev 2007;31:415–39.10.1177/0193841X07303318Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Kwan KP. How fair are student ratings in assessing the teaching performance of University teachers? Assess Eval High Educ 1999;24:181–95.10.1080/0260293990240207Search in Google Scholar

22. Black S. The power of caring to help kids adjust and achieve is now documented. ASBJ 2006;193:46–9.Search in Google Scholar

23. Klem AM, Connell JP. Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. J School Health 2004;74:262–73.10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Deslauriers L, Schelew E, Wieman C. Improved learning in a large-enrollment Physics class. Science 2011;332:862–4.10.1126/science.1201783Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Chang W, Jones A, Kunnemeyer R. Interactive teaching approach in Year one university physics in Taiwan: implementation and evaluation. APFSLT 2002;3:1–23.Search in Google Scholar

26. Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 1996;32:347–64.10.1007/BF00138871Search in Google Scholar

27. Biggs, J. The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. High Educ 2001;41:221–38.10.1023/A:1004181331049Search in Google Scholar

28. Kennedy KJ. Conceptualizing quality improvement in higher education: policy, theory and practice for outcomes based learning in Hong Kong. J High Educ Pol Manag 2011;33: 205−18.10.1080/1360080X.2011.564995Search in Google Scholar

29. Steinert Y, Snell LS. Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Med Teach 1999;21:37–42.10.1080/01421599980011Search in Google Scholar

30. Lo CC. Student learning and student satisfaction in an interactive classroom. J Gen Educ 2010;59:238–63.10.5325/jgeneeduc.59.4.0238Search in Google Scholar

31. Sher A. Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. J Interactive Online Learn 2009;8:102–20.Search in Google Scholar

32. 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;12:193–201.Search in Google Scholar

33. Shek TL, Ma CM. Do university students change after taking a subject on leadership and intrapersonal development? Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2014;13:451–56.10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0341Search in Google Scholar

34. 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;13:457–64.Search in Google Scholar