此網頁為2014年的香港大學民意研究計劃檔案網頁,不會再作更新。若需瀏覽最新資料,請到網址 http://hkupop.hku.hk
This is the archived webpage of HKU POP SITE of the year 2014 and no longer updated. For latest information, please visit http://hkupop.hku.hk.

Research Findings返回


    The questionnaire comprised 7 key questions. First of all, all respondents were asked to evaluate each of the 10 institutions based on their perception of its overall performance using a scale of 0-10, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. Respondents were suggested to take into account the institution’s local and international reputation, facilities, campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of its students, its learning atmosphere, as well as the diversification and degree of recognition for its courses. Survey results indicated that, in terms of principals’ perception, HKU received the highest mean score of 8.76, rated by 109 principals, CUHK came second with an average score of 8.51, whereas HKUST ranked third with a mean score of 8.10. For other universities’ performance scores, please refer to Table 2 below.


Table 2.    Overall Performance of Each Institution

[Q1] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of each institution of higher education after taking into consideration its local and international reputation, facilities and campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of students as well as its learning atmosphere, diversification and level of recognition of its courses, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. How would you rate the following institutions?

 

Average

Standard error

No of raters

Recognition

HKU

8.76

0.14

109

100.0%

CUHK

8.51

0.13

109

100.0%

HKUST

8.10

0.11

104

95.4%

PolyU

7.16

0.10

102

93.6%

CityU

6.64*

0.10

98

89.9%

HKBU

6.64*

0.09

103

94.5%

HKIEd

6.06

0.11

104

95.4%

LU

5.80

0.12

101

92.7%

HKSYU

5.49

0.14

95

87.2%

OUHK

5.27

0.14

93

85.3%

* In three decimal places, the respective mean score of CityU and HKBU are 6.643 and 6.641. Thus, they are ranked fifth and sixth respectively.


With respect to the perceived overall performance of the Vice-Chancellor/ President/Principal of each institution, taking into consideration one’s local and international reputation, approachability, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations, Professor Joseph S.Y. Sung topped the list with an average score of 9.06 rated by 107 respondents. Professor Lap-chee Tsui of HKU followed and attained a mean score of 8.38 rated by 106 respondents. Meanwhile, Professor Tony F. Chan of HKUST came third scoring 7.60 and rated by 87 respondents (Table 3).


Table 3.    Overall Performance of Each Vice-Chancellor / President / Principal

[Q2] Please use a scale of 0-10 to evaluate the overall performance of Vice-Chancellor / President / Principal of each institution while taking his local and international reputation, approachability to the public, leadership, vision, social credibility and public relations into consideration, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half.  How would you rate the following Vice-Chancellors / Presidents / Principal?

 

Average

Standard error

No of raters

Recognition

CUHK – Prof. Joseph J.Y. SUNG

9.06

0.10

107

98.2%

HKU – Prof. Lap-chee TSUI

8.38

0.12

106

97.2%

HKUST – Prof. Tony F. CHAN

7.60

0.13

87

79.8%

HKIEd – Prof. Yin Cheong CHENG

7.32

0.14

93

85.3%

PolyU – Prof. Timothy W. TONG

6.81

0.15

79

72.5%

HKSYU – Dr. Chi-yung CHUNG

6.66

0.20

79

72.5%

HKBU – Prof. Albert CHAN

6.59

0.17

91

83.5%

CityU – Prof. Way KUO

6.49

0.17

83

76.1%

OUHK – Prof. John C.Y. LEONG

6.15

0.17

72

66.1%

LU – Prof. Yuk-shee CHAN

5.99

0.16

75

68.8%


The next question asked the respondents’ opinion on the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of. Results showed that “commitment to society” was most commonly cited, as chosen by 60% of respondents. The next tier included “work attitude”, “conduct, honesty”, “global prospect / foresight” and “social / interpersonal skills”, accounting for and 58%, 46%, 44% and 41% of respondents correspondingly (Table 4).


Table 4.    Perceived Deficiencies among the University Students in Hong Kong

[Q3] What do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack of?
You may check as many choices as you like.

 

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 505 responses from 107 respondents)

% of total sample
(Base = 107)

Commitment to society

64

12.7%

59.8%

Work attitude

62

12.3%

57.9%

Conduct, honesty

49

9.7%

45.8%

Global prospect / foresight

47

9.3%

43.9%

Social / interpersonal skills

44

8.7%

41.1%

 

 

 

 

Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua

37

7.3%

34.6%

Emotion stability

30

5.9%

28.0%

Job opportunity

28

5.5%

26.2%

Critical thinking and problem-solving ability

25

5.0%

23.4%

Communication skills

25

5.0%

23.4%

 

 

 

 

Social / work experience

23

4.6%

21.5%

Creativity

22

4.4%

20.6%

Academic and professional knowledge

18

3.6%

16.8%

Financial management

18

3.6%

16.8%

Self-confidence

11

2.2%

10.3%

Computer proficiency

1

0.2%

0.9%

 

 

 

 

Not lack of anything

1

0.2%

0.9%

 

 

 

 

Total

505

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

Base

107

 

 

Missing case(s)

2

 

 


Question 4 is newly added this year and asked the principals what their major concerns are on whether to teach moral and national education in their school and multiple answers were allowed. Results revealed that 69% of the principals were most concerned with “the curriculum”, while 49% with “directions of teaching” and 45% with “teaching materials”. Other less common concerns included “assessment criteria”, “teachers’ reactions”, “public opinion” and “parents’ reactions”, accounting for 31% to 36% of the total sample. Meanwhile, 9% of the principals would not consider teaching moral and national education in their school as all (Tables 5 & 6).


Table 5.    Major concerns on teaching moral and national education

[Q4] On whether to teach moral and national education in your school, what are your major concerns?

 

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 357 responses from 108 respondents)

% of total sample
(Base = 108)

The curriculum

75

21.0%

69.4%

Directions of teaching

53

14.8%

49.1%

Teaching materials

49

13.7%

45.4%

 

 

 

 

Assessment criteria

39

10.9%

36.1%

Teachers’ reactions

35

9.8%

32.4%

Public opinion

34

9.5%

31.5%

Parents’ reactions

33

9.2%

30.6%

Learning motivations

20

5.6%

18.5%

 

 

 

 

Will not consider at all

10

2.8%

9.3%

Others (see Table 6)

9

2.5%

8.3%

 

 

 

 

Total

357

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

Base

108

 

 

Missing case(s)

1

 

 


Table 6.    Q4 (Other answers in exact wordings)

  1. 已有其他科目含有相關元素
  2. 必定要開,毋需考慮
  3. 並非推行德育及國民教育科最適切之方案
  4. 香港既是中國的一個城市,便有責任讓他們認識中國。
  5. 教師工作量
  6. 課時的安排
  7. 課程在早會、週會、通識已包括
  8. 學生反應
  9. 學校教育理念

Question 5 is also newly added this year and asked school principals whether they thought the policy on the Secondary School Places Allocation system should be continued. Results revealed that 47% of the principals thought it should be continued, while 53% believed it should not. The principals were then asked to provide some reasons for their choices. Among the 50 principals who thought the policy should be continued, 45 (90% of sub-sample) believe the policy could ensure “gender equality”. Follow at a considerable distance, 8 thought it could ensure “more even academic performance” of students. 7 each found it could “facilitates students’ social development” and believed “no problem with the policy”. As for why those 56 principals thought the policy should not be continued, 50 (91% of sub-sample) believed it was “unfair to boys due to their late development”. 26 each thought it would cause “gender imbalance” and “affect future studies and careers of the boys” while 14 believed it would “affect students’ social development” (Tables 7 to 10).


Table 7.    Opinions on the policy on the Secondary School Places Allocation system

[Q5a] Since 2002, places for boys and girls are no longer handled separately in the Secondary School Places Allocation system. Do you think the policy should be continued?

 

Frequency

% of valid respondents
(Base = 106)

Should continue

50

47.2%

Should not continue

56

52.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

106

100.0%

 

 

 

Base

109

 

Missing case(s)

3

 


Table 8.    Reasons for continuing the policy

[Q5b] [Only ask those who answered “should continue” in Q5a, base=50] Why?

 

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 68 responses from 50 respondents)

% of total sample
(Base = 50)

Gender equality

45

66.2%

90.0%

More even academic performance

8

11.8%

16.0%

Facilitates students’ social development

7

10.3%

14.0%

No problem with the policy

7

10.3%

14.0%

Facilitates teaching

1

1.5%

2.0%

 

 

 

 

Total

68

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

Base

50

 

 

Missing case(s)

0

 

 


Table 9.    Reasons for not continuing the policy

[Q5c] [Only ask those who answered “should not continue” in Q5a, base=56] Why?

 

Frequency

% of total responses (Base = 124 responses from 55 respondents)

% of total sample
(Base = 55)

Unfair to boys due to their late development

50

40.3%

90.9%

Gender imbalance

26

21.0%

47.3%

Affects future studies and careers of the boys

26

21.0%

47.3%

Affects students’ social development

14

11.3%

25.5%

Affects school facilities

8

6.5%

14.5%

 

 

 

 

Total

124

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

Base

55

 

 

Missing case(s)

1

 

 


Table 10.  Q5-Other comments on the policy on the Secondary School Places Allocation system (in exact wordings)

  1. Difficult to decide.
  2. 阻礙男生多元化發展 (因為現時評核以語文決定派位)
  3. 希望盡快取消這種派位方法,每間學校 (男女校) 比例相約,讓青年人「身心」平衡發展,符合新高中多元化學習的精神。
  4. 回應社會普遍對平等的要求
  5. 如沒有能照顧不同學生需要的措施配合下,不宜按能力分組派位,以致造成更多的不公平
  6. 應透過positive discrimination增強向高小男生的支援,協助男生突破因較遲成熟而產生的學習障礙。

Next, respondents were asked to rate how confident they were in the Hong Kong education system led by the Education Bureau using a scale of 0 to 100 marks, in which higher marks indicated a higher level of confidence. Results showed that 102 valid respondents gave a mean score of 53.8 marks, which was subject to a standard error of 1.80 marks (Table 11).


Table 11.  Confidence in the Hong Kong education system

[Q6] Overall speaking, how confident are you in the education system led by the Education Bureau? Please rate your confidence in 0 to 100 marks, 0 represents not confident at all, 50 represents half-half and 100 represents very confident.

 

Frequency

% of valid respondents
(Base = 105)

0 – 9

4

3.8

10 – 19

1

1.0

20 – 29

1

1.0

30 – 39

7

6.7

40 – 49

11

10.5

50

28

26.7

51 – 59

3

2.9

60 – 69

21

20.0

70 – 79

17

16.2

80 – 89

7

6.7

90 – 100

2

1.9

 

 

 

Don’t know

3

2.9

 

 

 

Total

105

100.0%

Missing case(s)

4

 

 

 

 

Mean

53.8

 

Median

50.0

 

Standard error of mean

1.80

 

Valid base

102

 




The last question was in open-end format that served to probe for respondents’ in-depth opinions regarding the subject matter and/or the survey. Please refer to Table 9 below for the submissions received.



Table 12.  Opinions / Suggestions from School Principals (in exact wordings)

[Q7] Is there any other opinion you would like to bring to the attention of the researchers? [open-end question]

  1. EDB shall have short, medium and long term plannings.
  2. Q4-Q6與調研題目無關,學校自主大,對香港教育的信心不在教育局,在教師團隊
  3. 現時中學的語文培訓不足,包括普通話培訓、外語培訓
  4. 對教師的專業培訓不足,未能監察教師的學術發展,教學動力以及未來老師老化,長期病患者人數激增,老師60歲才退休,影響學生學習等問題。
  5. 政府對中學 (津貼) 投放的資源太少!
  6. 教育局缺乏長遠目光和承擔,太多「見步行步」的心態。例:未能就「雙非童」的未來教育需求,及早籌謀。