1
Mixed Marriages and the Fulbright Hong Kong General Education Programme
The Fulbright Hong Kong General Education Programme is a mixed
marriage of Fulbright professors from America selected by the Council of
International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) to come to Hong Kong to partner up
with local universities to work on the development of general education as Hong
Kong is reforming the structure and curriculum of its secondary and tertiary
systems.
The Hosts’ Perceptions of the Guests: Feedback from the Local Universities
Where there is yin, there is yang. On the one hand, there has been
resentment expressed regarding the presumed role and function of Fulbrighters
as “consultants,” although the term does not appear anywhere in the MOUs, in
the award announcements by the CIES or the HKAC. On the other hand, there
has been deep appreciation of their presence, with some even asking for more
cohorts to come to set guidelines and platforms for programme assessment, to
conduct field experiment, for 2013 - 2014 and 2014 – 2015, to study how GE has
impacted 3+3+4, and to teach GE courses.
Faculty resistance and apathy were evident. Excuses such as workload,
the top-down UGC mandate, distrust of the new pedagogy, and an ignorance of
the GE concept and its function were made to justify such resistance. At the
same time, hearty appreciation of the Programme (FHKGEP) was also
expressed. The Fulbrighters were perceived as having played the role of
mediators, resolving internal tensions and helping local colleagues to see deeper
messages and worthwhile changes with the GE reform, and of ambassadors,
bringing the message even to senior administrators. This outside presence was
seen as very important especially in the early years because they acted as
stimulants and catalysts.
Because of the prevailing opinion that there have not been enough
colleagues who have ideas and innovative thought, the Fulbrighters have been
2
an intellectual resource while helping local colleagues to visualise what could be
done. Equipped with experience and expertise, they knew where and how to
help, comment and make suggestions, particularly when the resistance came
from senior colleagues in the form of hierarchical bullying. In the local
environment of resource-grabbing and scanty collegiality, the Fulbrighters were
like comrade-in-arms who helped to make the process much less lonely and
much less painful for those positively involved in the reform.
As individuals, the Fulbrighters are mostly very nice personalities, very
sincere, neither condescending nor aggressive, highly adaptable, very ready to
help and lend support, extremely conscientious and constructive, as well as
proactive. In some cases, it could be an issue of expectations. In general, the
contributions of each individual Fulbrighter were enormous and they spent a lot
of time on GE with the faculty.
Professionally, these cohorts of Fulbrighters have made significant
contributions. Their expertise had helped in the review of course proposals, on-
the-job training for the local faculty, curriculum design and giving valuable input
for implementation of GE courses. Through them, there was intramural
university collaboration - a rare phenomenon in Hong Kong.
An important function of the Fulbrighters was their role as sounding-
boards to help local colleagues to reflect deeper. This give-and-take experience
was perceived as invaluable as the Fulbrighters all came from different
disciplines, different institutions and different backgrounds such that the diversity
itself offered a range of perspectives. This same value, by contrast, has been
seen by some as useless for Hong Kong, since most of the Fulbrighters came
from smaller U.S. institutions, grew up in simpler, more rural environments and
are unversed in Hong Kong society and academic culture.
For this reason, it would be important for the Fulbrighters each to teach a
course, that they may learn about Hong Kong students. Oddly, not every one of
them was assigned teaching by the host institutions, a decision that contravenes
the conditions of the Award and the MOUs.
3
Whether the match between host and guest worked out or not, as has
been indicated, depended to a large extent on the senior administration. If the
latter made an effort to engage the guest-scholar, much benefit could be reaped;
if, however, the engagement was left to the faculty, very little would happen. In
some institutions, Cohorts 3 & 4 were not employed effectively, thus leaving the
guest-scholars on the fringes. All in all, the prevailing opinion was that none of
the institutions had a good administration policy for the guest-scholars.
Frequent reference to the Hong Kong-America Centre was made in a
positive one, giving it credit for its role as enthusiastic facilitator engaging
everyone in all the institutions across the spectrum, and finding its work of
building bridges between institutions wonderful.
The negative, regrettably, not only did not find the Programme (FHKGEP)
useful, but also lamented the institutional resources having been wasted on it
and queried the sums that were “downloaded to the HKAC.” This undertone of
aversion to America originated from the interpretation of the function of the
Programme as a kind of U.S. interference, with America presuming that it has
been sending experts in the role of consultants to help Hong Kong to build its
GE. Not few local colleagues found the idea of the Programme patronising,
hence their sentiment, annoyance.
When yin exhausts itself, yang appears.
The Fulbright Hong Kong General Education Programme is hailed, as we
have seen, by some as opportune to have brought in scholars from the United
States. Yin yang operate simultaneously.
The Guests’ Collective Reactions: Overall Comments Across the Four Fulbright
GE Cohorts
On the Host Institutions
The hospitality of the hosts is vouched with enthusiasm and appreciation,
the sophistication of the administrative system of Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions
is viewed with awe, and the efficiency and competence are greeted with
4
admiration. Hong Kong, with its colonial history, its current unique situation as a
Special Administrative Region in the People’s Republic of China, its privileges of
rights and freedom, and its rule of law, is fascinating. Equally is its curious mix of
an almost excessive materialist capitalist existence with strong undercurrents of
an old world culture of elderly respect, family ties and friendliness to foreigners.
But the hosts’ households. Faculty resistance, top-down administration,
absence of transparency and openness, uncommunicativeness between senior
administration and the rest of the institution, heavy faculty workload, senior
administration and faculty ignorance of, indifference to, or inexperience with GE,
top-down pedagogy by UGC mandating the Outcomes-Based Teaching and
Learning methods, the low status of GE as an educational vision, the research-
driven culture versus emphasis on teaching, and a subconscious academic
arrogance conscious of high international ranking, are characteristics commonly
perceived by all the guest-scholars. The solutions suggested are more
communication, more transparency, more genuine openness within and without,
with policies of faculty development and reward for teaching in place, and a
conceptual and not merely practical appreciation of GE.
On the HKAC
This match-maker has been commonly lauded for being an excellent
facilitator, great coordinator and task master who directed Team Fulbright to visit
and consult with faculty and administration in all the tertiary institutions, whose
leadership, vision, energy and enthusiasm have been absolutely fabulous. Its
Executive Director was regarded as a de facto member of all of the four cohorts
of Fulbrighters, and the professionalism of its staff appreciated.
On the Programme (FHKGEP)
The rewarding experience echoes across all four cohorts; the opportunity
for its learning experience ardently appreciated while a healthy sense of
professional fulfilment felt by the Fulbrighters for the help and support they have
5
lent to this momentous GE reform when Hong Kong is perched for
unprecedented change in its educational systems.
On the U.S. Consulate
It goes without saying that the said Consulate’s support has been
delightfully received.
On the Benefactors
Educators with visions, the Fulbright scholars’ appreciation of the vision of
Mr. and Mrs. Po and Helen Chung makes language an inadequate tool for
articulation. The foresight to connect Hong Kong with American experts on
General Education renders the Programme that lasted for four consecutive years
a match unprecedented both in the history of the Fulbright Award and in Hong
Kong’s higher education.
Self-Perceived Contributions of Team Fulbright
All four Teams perceived themselves as models of cooperation of scholars
from different institutions, systems and backgrounds, and as such they were
catalysts for inter-institutional connections and conversations between the local
institutions. They therefore brought universities together to face common
challenges through collaboration. By acting as a team to go around all the
institutions, they enabled some institutions to share resources with the rest. It
was an atmosphere of positive intramural support that they were helping to
foster. Moreover, they helped break barriers between faculty by sowing the
efficiency of collaboration and inspired constructive management, thereby not
only improving communication but helping to move things forward. Through
collaborative workshops, luncheon meetings, they helped institutions to see what
it takes to make institutional changes successful, that is, consensus-building,
transparency and active communication.
More specifically, Team Fulbright also acted as GE specialists
academically, administratively and strategically. They clarified goals, designed
6
courses, articulated administrative structures such as for procedures and
committees for vetting course and programme proposals, and improved review
processes. They participated in faculty development workshops, acted as
instructors, informed coaches and trainers of the new pedagogy, stressing
interdisciplinarity and team teaching while underscoring the basic principles of
Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning, and best practices. They were also
heavily involved in reviewing course proposals.
Chronological Sketch of Individual Fulbright Contribution to Institutional
Development of GE
Each sketch is put together from the Fulbright reports screened
chronologically. To protect their identity, individuals and institutions remain
anonymous.
Institution A
GE leadership existed upon the Fulbrighter 1’s arrival, whose presence
facilitated more campus involvement and information sharing, more engagement
from senior administrator, putting Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning in
order and moving things forward. A few difficulties were identified: staffing,
programme planning, budgeting, the need for GE policy and procedures to be in
place and the existence of internal strife. Two suggestions were proposed: that
of setting the budget for the next year and deliberating on rewarding teaching.
Fulbrighter 2 quotes rationale for GE, graduate attributes, PILOs and
CILOs from the website, thus reflecting the progress made. Two stages of
development were reported, with 2006 - 2008 as the Experimental Stage and
2009 - 2012 as the Gearing-up Stage.
Fulbrighter 2A came with the last cohort to find her host institution making
major changes. A niche was found to emphasise discovery in student learning.
GE was rebranded as Gateway Education. Fulbrighter 2A found herself a voting
member of two committees, the Gateway Education Programme Committee
(GEPC) and the General Education Evaluation Programme (GEEP), where she
7
played an active role in meetings, discussions and drafting of PILO 10. The
institution of GEPC ensures a firm step towards faculty ownership and
sustainability of GE as reflected by strong representation of colleges and schools
on the committee. Fulbrighter 2A assisted over thirty faculty in the development
of GE courses for science and engineering. The reluctance by these disciplines
to offer interdisciplinary courses was expressed to the guest-scholar as a form of
reticence to overstep themselves in another field. Her experience at her home
institution with Discovery Learning was brought to bear when she helped faculty
at Institution A to embrace its discovery-enriched curriculum. Fulbrighter 2A was
further engaged in vetting applicants for the post of Senior Education
Development Officer to enhance EDGE support of discovery learning as well as
vetting the Fulbright applicants. She was included in reviewing Teaching
Development Grant proposals in addition to having conducted a number of
workshops either singularly or with other Fulbrighters at the host university, its
community college, other universities and community colleges on
interdisciplinarity, undergraduate research, or her own specialty of book design,
the latter of which she did so also in Seoul, Osaka and Indonesia. As her host
institution actually hosted the International GE Conference in June 2012,
Fulbrighter 2A supported it by sitting on the Advisory and Programme
Committees while designing the logo and conference identity.
Institution B
Fulbrighter 3 arrived finding the host institution resentful of the guest’s
presence, with consultancy being a major issue. Efforts were made to divert
Fulbrighter 3’s attention on GE with the result that a new role was recast in the
administration of GE. Workshops were offered on PILOs while services were
rendered to other local institutions, which worked out well. Institutional top-down
approach to Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning caused much faculty
resistance. Suggestion was made to the host institution to devise a reward
system for teaching GE.
8
Fulbrighter 4 saw the predecessor’s role in curriculum design the year
before which should be completed in the current year along with the need for
vetting the courses. A conceptual problem facing GE is the balance that should
be maintained between content and engagement although, given Hong Kong’s
situation, the emphasis might have to be placed on a student-centred pedagogy.
The greatest obstacles at the host institution at the time were: a faculty who
would not buy-in GE; a culture of parents’ pragmatic expectations complemented
by students’ expediency towards course work; and requirements which were
often perceived as an unavoidable part of a sentence that has to be endured.
A distinction was pointed out between University GE and College GE by
Fulbrighter 5. While the former is well-established with staff, curriculum,
assessment in place, the latter urgently needs improvement in course design,
course content and assessment, staffing and best practice. The senior seminar
awaits major improvement given its no-credit, project-based final year design.
Implicit is the need to recognise and reward faculty workload and its effect on the
quality of teaching and morale. Department GE similarly requires reform.
Seeing the four cohorts as a continuum, Fulbrighter 5 was the third in line, with
Fulbrighter 3’s contribution lying in the alignment of learning outcomes, defining
breadth areas and articulating GE terms and goals, while Fulbrighter 4 offering
services in writing-intensive workshops and capstone experiences, and serving in
the second stage of the pilot programme; suggestion was made to his successor
to work for reform of CGE. Meanwhile a self-evaluation and review process was
taking place during this second stage of the pilot programme; Fulbrighter 5
foresees final decisions having to be made in the next year on tutorial pedagogy,
team-teaching, assessment and assignment. A possible option for addressing
the problem of staffing is the hiring of post-doctoral scholars from overseas to
teach part-time and to do research. A further consideration on the problem of
staffing is granting GE teachers equal faculty status. This kind of separatism
exists beyond the circle of GE teachers vis-à-vis other faculty and is evident in
the non-communication between the UGE and the Centre for Learning
Enhancement and Research, a phenomenon not so constructive for the teaching
9
of GE. A few suggestions were made to celebrate, continue, change, collaborate
and connect.
The sequence of development is not evident in the successor’s role.
Fulbrighter 6 did not see value or worth in the presence of any Fulbrighter at the
host institution. Instead, it is strongly suggested that the host institution should
be advising American universities on GE, given the superiority of the former’s
programme. A common point reiterated is the need for rewarding GE teachers.
Institution C
A member of the first cohort, Fulbrighter 7 presents a description of the
goals, objectives, values and attributes from the host institution’s website. A list
of broad areas, a chart on Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning and a
description of GE regulations for 2010 – 2012 are also included.
Institution D
Faculty leadership with a careful and thoughtful approach was evident at
this host institution and a system of vetting course proposals was beginning
when Fulbrighter 8 arrived. Insightful, Fulbrighter 8 perceived that internal rivalry
was a problem as was an incoherent and fragmentary core curriculum. Faculty
resistance pervaded from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor’s Office while the
extraordinary lack of transparency and openness were institutional aspects that
had to be addressed. A conceptual question was thrown up for reflection:
Could the vision of GE really be achieved by one course or a set of courses?
Fulbrighter 9 found his role auxiliary and tangential. His host institution’s
urgent need was to reconfigure GE by redefining concepts because new terms
imply new approaches which require new mentality. For example, Fulbrighter 9
pointed out that “rigour” in GE actually means interconnectivity, “research” in GE
is done through interdisciplinarity which should be organised around a
disciplinary formation of knowledge, while the first year experience should be
formalised for new students to adapt to university life and to prepare for major
10
study. Urgency for faculty participation through reward and faculty development
and reaching out to parents and society was underscored.
In a spirit of collegiality, ten “commonplace recommendations” were
offered: (1) active pedagogies with a range of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary
GE faculty should be used; (2) since Hong Kong’s system needs to be more
student centred, high impact interactive practices which include experiential and
community-based education should be adopted; (3) more focussed attention
should be given to Business, Law and Engineering for their insufficient
engagement with GE; (4) a core teaching faculty devoted to GE should be
developed to complement departmentally based faculty; (5) more role for
Fulbrighters as trainers, instructors and coaches; (6) more support for the
development of academic support services and the need for more experienced
English Language instructors; (7) similar systematic training for secondary
schools in liberal studies; (8) develop student and parent ambassadors to
articulate connections between the pragmatics of successful workforce and those
of GE; (9) develop workshops for university administrators about cross- and
interdisciplinarity; and (10) continue exchange of ideas, practices and capabilities
from overseas universities.
Fulbrighter 10 provided a brief, descriptive account of the graduate
attributes, intended learning outcomes and a concise account of the evolvement
of the Common Core Curriculum from two broadening courses to each CCC
course consisting of two-hour lecture and a one-hour tutorial per week.
Armed with advice from his predecessor, Fulbrighter 11 knew beforehand
that his services would not be employed for what the Award stipulated, so that he
pitched in wherever he could, even designing grading rubrics for class
participation. A sounding-board especially for the Director of GE at his host
institution, he saw his contribution the most important in this respect. It was
regrettable that conceptual discussions were not carried out in that institution.
The value of liberal education is perceived as important for the workforce rather
than for its own sake should, in the first place, not be a bone of contention for a
university which is the seat of intellectual exchange. The exaggerated hopes
11
placed on GE were cautioned against. There was moreover little reflection on
the necessity to distinguish between a broadening course and an introductory
course, to appreciate the meaning and significance of interdisciplinarity and how
such courses ought to be designed, to deliberate on the meaning of General
Education such that clarity of purpose could be exercised with respect the
collaborative, group social skills, and experiential components of a course. The
meaning of active learning, too, requires more careful reconsideration.
Institution E
The first Fulbright hosted by this institution only arrived with Cohort 3.
Fulbrighter 12 utilises the institution’s website to describe briefly its GE
programme, graduate attributes, core curriculum, the five clusters of courses and
the five points for the programme intended learning outcomes.
Fulbrighter 13 joined the last cohort but was hosted for only the first term
of the academic year. Impressed with the thoughtful, well-conceived, innovative,
state of the art programmes at all the local institutions, his job as a member of
the last cohort lay in pedagogy. Hong Kong is found to be neither more nor less
traditional than the U.S. in this respect, with enough faculty doing exciting things.
Impediments, such as typical faculty inertia exacerbated by institutional
obsession with publications reinforced by the attendant rewards that are tied in
with government funding policies, could be overcome by a system that rewards
teaching development activities driven by the University Grants Council. This
sensible solution suggested by Fulbrighter 13 is complemented with the insightful
distinction made between Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning approaches
as a teaching development matter and OBTL used for quality assurance to
assess programmes, not individual courses. A measure to ease faculty
resentment is to recognise this distinction, which has the important consequence
of protecting faculty creativity and autonomy in their course design and
execution. Detached in his macro survey of how the land might lie for Hong
Kong’s higher education, Fulbrighter 13 foresees a phenomenon possibly neither
intended nor desirable, that of a homogeneous picture with all these institutions
12
sporting General Education with similar vision and programmes, learning
assessments and outcomes and, above all, the new pedagogy. Suggestion is
made with respect the importance of diversity and pluralism in tertiary education
for cultural, economic and political vibrancy of an international metropolis like
Hong Kong.
Institution F
Fulbrighter 14 arrived with Cohort 2. His quarter-of-a-century experience
in GE helped him little at his host institution where faculty resistance against GE
and resentment against Fulbright presence rivalled each other. Self-reflection,
cultural awareness, eagerness to adapt, readiness to alter teaching styles
amounted to little in opening the arms and minds of the local colleagues. His
contributions are negative lessons to be learnt by an inward-looking faculty,
teachers themselves in the city’s school system bearing the sombre task of
educating generations of children and adolescents.
Fulbrighter 15 was a surrogate at Institution F although he belonged to
another host institution. A member of Cohort 3, he was better received, a
feature that was a positive reflection of institutional improvement. Months,
however, slipped by when attention zeroed in on “Terms of Reference” and
similar matters of accuracy. The Fulbrighter’s suggestion that they should be
seeing themselves as a Task Force rather than a Governance Committee was
not only immediately dismissed but the appropriateness of his membership on
the said committee was also disputed. While the overall approach was
thoughtful and the programme with three broadening courses from three areas is
respectable, the purpose of the foundation course was unclear. This was
worsened by the structure of the lecture series whereby chair professors lecture
with no meaningful thematic connections with each other. Another potential
problem detected by Fulbrighter 15 was the unusual role played by faculty in
these courses: while they would be entrusted with responsibilities to direct
tutorials, they are not required to go to the chair professors’ lectures. While the
Director of the GE Office was committed, there was little support from the top
13
administration. It was regrettable that Teams Fulbright’s variety of skills and
experiences had not been utilised for the progress necessary. Fulbrighter 15’s
contributions, therefore, derived from his clarity of thought in sifting the
weaknesses of a programme in the process of reform.
Institution G
A member of Cohort 2, Fulbrighter 16 arrived to find that the development
of GE at the host institution was well underway, with a structured plan and in the
process of reviewing courses. Suggestion was made to render Outcomes-Based
Teaching and Learning less rigid in order to leave room for faculty creativity in
the design and assessment of their courses. To local colleagues, it was
recommended that a good GE course could be conceived as the first and last
course that a non-major would ever take. External review that was carried out
would not be efficacious as that deprived faculty of a sense of ownership, which
would be detrimental to faculty morale. Team teaching would only be a good
idea if the workload of each of the two members of the team would still be
regarded as a full-course workload and not a half-course workload; this is
because good teaching in a team is equally demanding. A further, rather urgent,
need of the host institution was a director for GE. Like some fellow Fulbrighters,
this one perceived JUPAS hindrance to students’ choice and interest, not to
mention, contradictory in its practice to the vision of GE. For the Fulbrighters
themselves, teaching was strongly recommended, an agreement oddly not often
lived up to by the host institutions. Looking at education from beyond turf
concerns, Fulbrighter 16 proposed that universities should reach out to the
federation of community colleges and that the next cohort should take that up.
Since her predecessor’s contributions were more in the area of structural
changes, Fulbrighter 17 perceived that hers lay more in acting as mediator
between the GE Office and the disciplines, as ambassador to encourage
departments to decide on the GE courses they would offer, and as reviewer of
new GE interdisciplinary courses. Hands-on help with pilot courses, feedback for
course proposals and sharing of views comprised some of the services rendered.
14
Institution H
At this host institution, GE was in an undesirable state of low status and
low morale. The institution’s mission as deliverer of technicians for the job
market and a legacy that a technical institution had no use for analytical or
creative thinking made institutional resistance to UGC’s mandate to develop GE
almost an expectation. There was little awareness of GE’s importance and little
consensus building due to a culture of top-down management reinforced by
insufficient communication and lack of transparency that are prevalent in all Hong
Kong’s tertiary institutions. A commercial style client-patron culture that heeds
student evaluation and enrolment inadvertently encouraged students to be
dictators, not partners, of education. Changing the course credit from three to
two and the grading system to Pass/Fail greatly diminished the credibility of GE
courses among colleagues and students. Students’ attitude towards GE is part
of a local student culture where pragmatism and expediency override the
importance of learning, a culture that is handed down from their parents. JUPAS,
which places students according to a merit order list compiled by admissions
tutors of the nine participating institutions over students’ own choice of interest,
further diminishes interest in knowledge and constrict learning opportunities.
Fulbrighter 18’s contributions lay not only in these conceptual, structural and
administrative perceptions, but also in strategic planning and ambassadorial
roles given the marginalised position of the GE Centre. Suggestion was given on
the need to develop a Quality Assurance System that will incorporate OBTL, a
move that was necessary to make the latter effective. Recommendation was
offered to set up a new teaching staff whole-heartedly dedicated to GE and with
no research expectations. A contribution Team Fulbright made in one of their
workshops on the ways to make institutional changes more successful was
reiterated: consensus-building, transparency and active communication are
crucial.
To his amazement, when Fulbrighter 19 came onto the scene, the host
institution had taken a drastic, upward progression. The new Vice President for
15
Academic Development’s devotion to GE had resulted in a great leap forward in
GE’s improvement despite faculty resistance. The inadequacy of the institution’s
GE Programme was admitted, the necessity of curriculum reform affirmed, the
critical importance of language skills underscored, and an administrative
structure was in place with the Committee on General and Language Education
with its five committees overseeing the modified General University
Requirements under which was a Task Force to review foundational programmes
in Chinese and English. A challenge the institution must address was staffing:
the need for qualified staff with training and expertise in GE to teach. GE staff
should be given a role in course management as stake-holders is equally
important.
It was not surprising that Fulbrighter 20 found herself amidst fast progress
upon her arrival at the host institution. GE was refocused into seven high-impact
practices with leadership training, freshmen seminar, service learning and strong
focus on reading and writing. Several important aspects of the GE programme
were deliberated on. Fulbrighter 20 shared similar experiences that had
occurred in the United States, led focus groups with students and faculty,
observed tutorials, interviewed tutors and instructors, designed and administered
pre- and post-course surveys, and put the committee in touch with American
institutions that have been successful with common reading programmes.
Suggestions were made to convey educational expectations to students upon
their entry while GE advising should be implemented and should partner up with
advising in the major. Meanwhile reaching out to students and parents to explain
the value of GE is no less important than the creation of a learning community
and the revival of a learning-to-learn programme.
Fulbrighter 21 thus arrived to tell a positive story of a sound structure that
was already in place. This sound structure was moreover backed by a
philosophy of developing the whole student. The unique features of service
learning and the leadership course were exemplified by the emphasis on self-
discovery and interpersonal relationship. A mature GE administrative structure
was firmly in place with the Director of Undergraduate Studies reporting to the
16
Vice President of Academic Development and an Office of Academic Advising
materialising in the summer. Fulbrighter 21 had the fulfilling opportunity to be
granted teaching at his host university. His contributions to pedagogy were in the
form of offering workshops. To assist in enhancing the service learning aspect of
the programme, he helped the host institution to join an international community
outreach programme between Duta Wacona Christian University in Indonesia
and the Australian National University. Another function served by Fulbrighter 21
was his workshop on grant writing for the local colleagues. He also assisted the
Faculty of Humanities to apply for a grant from the European Union Commission
to fund a few European-themed issue courses and to support GE type
outreaches to the Hong Kong public. All in all, he had worked with the GE
Centre, the Education Development Centre and the Division of Student Affairs. A
subdued voice of academic politics that preceded his arrival was echoed along
with the sound of insufficient transparency in matters of funding and staffing. His
words of caution to community colleges, if heeded, would help them to avoid the
hindrances experienced by the UGC-funded institutions in the past four years.
Programme and Curriculum Description of General Education at Hong Kong’s
Universities1
Administrative Structure
Despite a variety of nomenclature used, GE is essentially overseen by
middle to senior management, often with the former also reporting to the latter.
Funding Models
These vary from greater transparency to greater opaqueness with similar
variation of smaller to considerable budget.
Learning Outcomes
1 The following section relies on data supplied by GE Fulbright Cohort, 2011-2012, “General Education at
Hong Kong’s Universities Program and Curriculum Descriptions,” Hong Kong, June 2012.
17
On the whole, learning outcomes are clearly defined across the spectrum
by all the institutions with the GE course content aligning with GE learning
outcomes. Appropriate processes exist for their legitimisation.
Formally in place and often quite elaborate in content and procedure,
Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning, as some Fulbright scholars have
reiterated, are devised for accreditation purposes to assess the quality of
programmes. To apply OBTL rigidly, therefore, constrict intellectual creativity of
the professors and is one of the causes of faculty resentment.
Assessment Plan
Some institutions employ external consultants or reviewers of academic
calibre, some use both internal and external assessors, while others prefer solely
internal means. For the latter, student course surveys, programme level exit
survey, alumni focus group study and/or annual reports are some of the choice
methods.
Staff Perception of Signature Aspects
At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the three complementary
components of College GE, GE Foundation and University GE are unique. The
two foundation courses, “In Dialogue with Humanity” and “In Dialogue with
Nature,” that form university requirement cover major texts and milestones in
humanistic and scientific achievements.
City University of Hong Kong prides itself on its Discovery-enriched
Curriculum which emphasises discovery and innovation. Its three-credit core
course on Chinese Civilisation, - history and philosophy, - aims at helping
students to discover their self-identity in the unique environment of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Baptist University stands out with its core course on public
speaking and its one distribution course requirement.
At the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, a service learning experience is
required of all students while a course on “Leadership and Intrapersonal
Development” is mandatory for all. A pioneer attempt in Hong Kong is the
18
establishment of an Office of Advisement to lend student guidance on the choice
of GE courses.
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is distinguished by
its broad-based design of seven areas from which students can choose one
course in each area. These areas are science and technology, social analysis,
humanities, quantitative reasoning, English communication, Chinese
communication and healthy lifestyle. The provision of hands-on art courses and
the introduction of interdisciplinary school-sponsored courses in the Common
Core Programme form part of its outstanding features.
A liberal arts college, Lingnan University has built into its undergraduate
curriculum a strong general education emphasis. Its eighteen credit hours of
language with six in Putonghua and twelve in English, plus thirty-three credit
hours of general education stand the institution in good stead as a genuine liberal
arts university in Hong Kong. An unusual course, “Making of Hong Kong,” is a
common core that still faces “difficulties in defining the scope of the course and in
integrating the topics from multiple disciplines.”
The University of Hong Kong seems to hold the view that the philosophy
and educational values of the Common Core are its commitment to a non-
traditional thematic approach that rises above disciplinary boundaries. This is
what makes the Common Core coherent and distinctive.
Relation between Teaching and Learning and General Education2
Institution M: So far there has been little collaboration between the two
sectors due to personality conflict, although the situation is likely going to
improve when there is personnel change.
Institution N: An office with rather different nomenclature is set up to
strengthen the teaching and learning environment. Staff development towards
the adoption of OBTL and the promotion of the effective use of e-learning
technologies form part and parcel of this new office.
2 To protect institutional and individual reputation, a different set of letters of the alphabet are used.
19
Institution O: Both the GE and T&L offices offer workshops for faculty
development. The former has also been offering GE Dialogue workshops with
up to eleven of them being offered this academic year.
Institution P: The two sectors are separate and report to different
administrators while the educational development centre and the university
requirement programme both report to the provost. Senior administration is
supportive.
Institution Q: The two sectors work closely to support faculty teaching and
development. Workshops on course design based on OBTL and technical
support are offered. The two sectors also collect data for quality assurance
purposes.
Institution R: On paper, the two sectors are separate, each under a
different Associate Vice President. In practice, however, the teaching and
learning sector have a director active in both teaching and learning and GE.
Institution S: The director of Common Core is an affiliate member of the
teaching and learning sector and has at least one associate professor from the
latter working with him, although the latter is not directly involved with the
business of the former. A variety of programmes and services are offered to
strengthen teaching in general, which includes GE.
Classroom Modalities for GE Courses
The Foundation Programme at the Chinese University of Hong Kong
offers the weekly course in the manner of one lecture and two tutorials.
Department GE courses run the gamut, some incorporating learner-centred
activities while others are lecture-based. Institutional preference may be
reflected in the teaching awards being granted to courses with an array of
modalities with online components and out-of-class activities.
City University, for its part, has been fine-tuning its GE curriculum into
Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning approach. It has adopted a student-
centred approach for delivering education programmes. This can be exemplified
20
by the institution’s online student guide, which provides information on the
concept of OBTL.
Hong Kong Baptist University will use lecture-tutorial sessions with a class
size of fifty. Where appropriate, field trips, class visits, outside speakers, plays
and performances form part of the learning experience.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University will also use the lecture-tutorial style.
During the double-cohort year, classes may be large, upwards of one hundred.
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology allows instructors
discretion to choose the mode of teaching they deem appropriate. Lectures are
supported by tutorials. As a science and technology institution, laboratory and
demonstration sessions are used, just as field trips and visits or outdoor activities
may be included.
Lingnan University uses a variety of modalities, depending on the
professor’s preference. Some foundation courses may be lecture-tutorial style
while others, section-based. The size of lectures tend to be large, upwards of
one hundred to hundred and fifty; tutorials are about two dozen students each;
sectional courses are composed of some three dozen students; and cluster
courses have forty.
The University of Hong Kong will have its common core courses offered in
lecture-tutorial style of over one hundred students each.
What’s more to be done at this stage?
Institution T: There is some urgency to engage in faculty training. It is
moreover necessary to staff its humanities and science courses.
Institution U: Everything seems to be under control. Only a handful of
nuts and bolts need addressing, such as having to fine-tune a few courses.
Institution V: Apart from having to improve the existing insufficient budget,
simplifying and rendering efficient some bureaucratic procedures will economise
time for the faculty. Entrusting the Director of GE the authority to approve minor
changes in course content is a simple move that reaps great benefits.
21
Institution W: Since it looks ahead, it anticipates taking a few more steps.
A longitudinal study of student enrolment will help to better project supply and
demand in this new era of 3+3+4. The new school-sponsored courses that are
interdisciplinary in nature will have to have their course attributes better defined
for course review and quality assurance. A quality assurance process for
reviewing the implementation quality of courses and another for programme
review are in the planning process.
Institution X: Assessment will be a serious challenge. Much more
consideration has to be given to assessing student learning outcomes. There is
urgency for the appointment of a full-time director to provide leadership,
especially in devising a high-quality assessment process. An unfortunate history
of implementing OBTL has soured faculty to its value. Faculty autonomy and
academic freedom are important values that need not be compromised by an
appropriate approach to OBTL.
Institutional Y: Logistical concerns, such as classroom availability, time-
tabling, and office space have to be worked out. Other administrative challenges
exist.
Institution Z: Effective time-tabling has also to be addressed.
Correspondingly, first-year programming for students, the embedding of
Discovery-enriched Curricular (DEC) into an increased number of GE
interdisciplinary courses, and curricula mapping of the GE Programme with DEC
and graduate outcomes are steps awaiting attention. Given the complexity
stated, student advising about GE is crucial and must be institutionalised.
The Teachers
With respect to its University General Education, the Chinese University
of Hong Kong boasts of full-time instructors all with a doctorate although they are
not tenured. The picture of College GE, however, is fuzzier and it seems
unclear as to the number of part-time, temporary or visiting hands that are
employed by the different colleges.
22
Instead of hiring locally, City University of Hong Kong is proposing the
CItyU International Transition Team Scheme of appointing Graduate Teaching
Assistants from overseas on short-term basis to provide intensive help to CityU’s
students with their English. A category of Postdoctoral Fellows for foreigners will
exist also to undertake language support duties in addition to research
collaboration with CityU’s faculty. A third category of a one-year renewable full-
time English teachers with a bachelor’s or master’s degree forms part of the new
scheme. There is no indication that apart from their job as English teaching
assistants, they will have any role at all in GE teaching despite the substantial
academic training received by those who fall within the first two categories.
At Hong Kong Baptist University, the decision on who is to teach GE
courses rests with the individual departments, with those which offer core
courses such as language also engaging temporary help. It is possible for
visiting or part-time teachers to apply to the Director of GE for a full-time post and
the application will be reviewed and approved by the Vice President for
Academic Affairs. There is encouragement for the departments to involve senior
members to teach GE.
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University relies on the departments or
disciplines to offer GE courses. Given the double cohort, additional temporary
faculty will be hired while some instructional duties will be assumed by graduate
teaching assistants.
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology equally relies on
the regular faculty to teach the common core courses while occasionally
engaging visiting academics to co-teach. The arts courses will be taught by
practitioners on part-time basis.
Lingnan University is a liberal arts institution set up without any
mathematics or science faculty. Since the new core curriculum includes a cluster
requirement called Science, Technology and Society, it will have to engage part-
time, temporary or visiting faculty to teach some of the courses while other
courses are taught by existing faculty in the departments.
23
The University of Hong Kong only uses full-time, permanent staff. The
large lectures are offered by them while the tutorial sections are held by teaching
assistants. Distinguished visiting professors may be allowed to teach, but a
regular faculty has to be the official course supervisor.
To the Manor or Manger Born?
The Fulbright Hong Kong General Education Programme can be said to
have been most successful on the American side. The agreement to assist and
support the General Education curriculum reform has been more than fulfilled by
every cohort so long as these guest-scholars had been allowed to participate. In
reality, most of the Fulbright GE scholars had been directed, more often than not,
into many duties other than those stipulated in the Award or MOUs. Their
teaching responsibility, for example, was too often not arranged by the host
institutions in Hong Kong. Upon their return, they have all been putting their
experience to good use within their home institution, spreading what they have
observed, learnt and experienced to other institutions within the United States
and abroad either through direct invitations or conferences, as well as through
publication. By doing so, they continue to contribute to Hong Kong’s General
Education reform and to their host institutions by being their ambassadors and,
above all, by putting Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions on the world map.
On the Hong Kong side, concrete benefits have obviously been reaped by
the participating institutions. A degree of professional incivility shown by the host
institutions made the guest-scholars’ visits awkward. Non-attendance at
workshops, seminars, and any such services offered by the guest-scholars was a
form of collective boycott. Most institutions boast of tens of hundreds of
professors of all sorts of levels, lecturers, instructors, demonstrators and teaching
assistants full time and part time. Over the four years of the FHKGEP,
attendance by twenty-five percent of them would have more than filled up a room
each time. Professional discourtesy aside, the curious absence of the intellectual
desire to learn from and share with fellow, albeit overseas, colleagues is the least
flattering disposition of any scholar, whose inclination is to enquire. Workload
24
could only provide a lame pretext when one to two hours could not be spared
within a space of four years. Above all, institutional pride and identity should be
sufficient for collegiate participation.
Looking Ahead
(A) Teaching
Not few institutions adopt the method of engaging senior professors to
teach while using tutors or teaching assistants for the tutorials. This seems to be
the traditional, colonial way of teaching large lecture courses which, in turn,
seems to be a modified version of Oxford University’s university lectures
delivered by university lecturers and professors with tutorials being taught by
college tutors who are themselves learned fellows and scholars. That is to say,
the term, “tutors,” refers to those on equal footing with lecturers and professors.
Smaller Classes Taught by the Professors Themselves:
The question to reflect upon is the grounds for adopting the professor
lecturing and the tutor/teaching assistant tutoring system for general education
courses. Apart from logistical reasons, is it also due to the concern for providing
a “common experience” for every student? If so, what does “common” mean?
Everyone taking one particular core course will have attended the lectures of the
same professor, and yet being tutored by different tutors of more junior
intellectual calibre? Is it necessary that one voice be given to the course content
and texts, especially when the whole range of reading can never be covered by
the lectures? In short, what is learnt in the lectures is quantitatively restricted by
the number of lecture hours, which means that the common experience is not so
substantial. That being the case, could it not be an option to split the large
lectures into smaller classes so that there can be more personalised and
interactive teaching and learning, with the professors marking the course work
themselves? The success of GE relies on the quality of the courses which, in
turn, depends on quality marking assuming, no doubt, that professors take their
job seriously.
Use of Overseas Postdoctoral Scholars and ABDs (All-but-Dissertation):
25
A proposal exists to employ these two categories to perform part-time
English language duties while engaging them as research collaborators or
allowing them to do their own research. This idea is beneath respectable
academic institutions to implement given the inherent cynicism and exploitative
approach. A postdoctoral scholar is a junior member in the republic of scholars
and should be engaged to teach her/his subject or specialty, and not used as an
English teaching assistant. Instead, these junior scholars could be used more
effectively as tutors for the professor in the field s/he has come to do research
with. A policy could be set up such that any faculty granted the use of a
postdoctoral scholar for research collaboration is required to teach a GE course
utilising the same junior scholar as tutor for the said course. This type of
collaborative teaching often benefits both the senior and junior members alike in
terms of team creativity, not to mention the value students would reap from it.
From the perspective of the institution, it will be offering quality, innovative GE
courses of an enviable variety. A practical advantage of this approach over that
which utilises these junior scholars as English teaching assistants is the
attraction it has to the top-calibre junior scholars in the world.
An advanced graduate student who is writing her/his dissertation (ABD)
can be similarly employed, though with more guidance and less responsibility.
Giving them the opportunity to tutor courses relevant to their training will
encourage the best of them to apply to the post and to dedicate themselves to
the tutoring.
Graduate Teaching Assistants:
Junior graduate students before their completion of the third year in
science and fourth year in the humanities and social sciences should not be used
to teach except for the exceptional ones, given their unsubstantial training. An
interesting course requires the deliverer to be on top of the material, and such
command of breadth is rare among junior graduate students. Marking should not
be entrusted to them except for multiple choice questions. This is in part
because proper GE courses by their nature actually require broader knowledge.
26
The narrower in knowledge the marker is, the less capable s/he is of doing a fair
job.
Small Group of GE Professors:
There exist enough renaissance scholars in the world to make up a small
pool of high-morale, dedicated GE professors to give quality and status to the
core courses while leaving the departments or disciplines to offer theirs. The
stability their permanent role and function will lend to GE will be significant. The
quality of their courses can be used to measure against those that have much
room for improvement. An astute administrative decision is to invest resources in
carefully selecting, then supporting this group. The long term value is
immeasurable as Hong Kong’s higher education is just at the beginning of a
major change. Unforeseeable changes will come in the next decade or two. The
institution that is able to set this GE cornerstone aright has a head start and will
likely earn the laurel of the near future.
Rewarding GE Teaching:
When the status of GE courses are properly established, and the core
courses are challenging academically, and offered by a group of professors
respected for their best practice, the departmental GE offerings will follow suit in
terms of quality and status. This will avoid the gray area of remuneration for
teaching specific courses and any attending ethical and professional
complexities.
(B) Student Advising
Institutions that have made the decision to set up a system of student
advising for GE are likely going to have fewer lost or disgruntled students and
faculty. Those institutions that will have GE student advisors coordinating with
departmental student advisors will be providing very effective guidance to student
learning, postgraduate studies and career prospects.
(C) Assessment
Neither the compliant filling in of forms nor the motion of carrying out the
avowed methods fulfils the Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning criteria.
The fact that OBTL is designed for the appraisal of programmes rather than for
27
individual course evaluation serves as a reminder that OBTL ought to be used
flexibly by the administration in order to encourage faculty creativity and
autonomy. Much of the resentment towards GE with its attendant adoption of
OBTL, issued from faculty’s sense of the loss of ownership of the courses they
teach. At the same time, assessment in the form of marking essay tests and
papers ought to be done principally by the professor: the use of post-doctoral
scholars as tutors for courses they are versed in work out well in this respect as
they can be entrusted with two-thirds of the marking, while ABDs can be given
fifty percent of the marking. The smaller core courses taught by GE professors
ought to have the assessments done by the professors themselves. The benefit
of this policy is that not only will it raise the profile and standard of the core
courses, but it will enable the administration to have a more accurate overview of
students’ standards across the spectrum of the disciplines and schools so that
resource allocation can also be done more fairly. For the humanities and social
science courses, the traditional in-class essay type of assessment ought to be
encouraged as this is still one of the best methods of assessing fast-thinking,
speedy and efficient selection, application of data from memory under pressure
for critical analysis, and logical and coherent presentation. The skills trained
through this process remain useful for life.
In some institutions there exists the practice of pulling curves and
adjusting marks, lowering the scale of the pass mark by forty-percent and a
variety of other means of fiddling with raw marks. When such practices become
routine, it defeats the purpose of assessment and makes a mockery of the
professionalism of educators. Worse still, it demoralises those who stand by best
practice. When words get round to students, which they usually do, a dangerous
message is instilled in them, which will become a part of their graduate attributes.
Institutions slap themselves on the face when they do not approach students’
marks with the gravity that they deserve.
(D) Course Content and Texts
Universities are institutions where ideas are taught, shared, deliberated
on, discussed, argued for or against, in short, bandied back and forth. They are
28
where, first and foremost, the training of the intellect takes place. General
Education was conceived of to broaden the intellectual horizons of students in a
world where knowledge has been increasingly compartmentalised, although one
practical objective has been to enable students to adapt to an ever-changing
world, to find or change jobs. The approach, nevertheless, remains intellectual,
at least for the top-tier universities in the world. Hence their emphasis on texts,
on great books, on the classics.
It is the reading of the same text that constitutes the “common
experience.” “Common experience” in the context of the vision of general
education transcends spatial temporal confines. It means an individual reading
of a common text under the guidance of the same professor for some students or
of different professors for others. It can be extended across generations,
cultures, nations and oceans. It is the recognition of this common participation of
an activity that is experiential individually. This experience that is more than
merely intellectual since all reading requires the senses and so is also affective.
It is also a collective experience that is transcendent of time and space crowning
the great books courses as the jewels of GE. The quality of teaching is therefore
of utmost importance, from the perspective of the education provider. Hence the
teaching assistant system should be used with circumspection, as aid for
students, not substitute for the professor’s teaching.
(E) Pedagogy
The theory of learning is complicated. In simplistic term, “pedagogy,”
when refers to GE is often, in Hong Kong, taken to mean interactivity,
experiential learning, out-of-the-classroom activities, excursions, advanced IT
support and the like. No doubt these are different ways of teaching and learning.
The unbelievers question the appropriateness of such learning for college
students, in their late teens and older, while maintaining that these are more
appropriate for secondary school. The missionaries vouch for their inspirational
value. Traditionalists hold that while tutorials have always been interactive for
their emphasis on discussion, reading of texts is experiential.
29
Two major disagreements can be identified. One is whether GE courses
are defined by, and so must comprise, such characteristics. The other is whether
the inclusion of such features increase or decrease the value and quality of a GE
course. First, General Education is conceived of as a way to broaden the
intellectual horizons of students and does not necessarily have to include such
components as out-of-classroom activities, film-showing, etc. to validate its
existence. Institutions which recognise this allows space for faculty choice.
Those which come down on the believers’ side apply OBTL more rigidly on GE
courses, thereby causing more faculty resentment. Appreciating that those
features are not necessary conditions for a valid GE course will not only ease
faculty discontent but will allow for greater diversity of teaching methods for GE
courses. Second, the increase or decrease of the value of GE courses when
those features are incorporated into the courses depends on the intellectual
calibre and creativity of the professors offering the courses. In Hong Kong, it will
take some years before high calibre GE courses with new teaching methods will
be offered. Until then, the non-believers will be generally right about their
scepticism especially when scope and content are compromised for the sake of
experience and activities, the application of which can be abused. It is worth
noting that top-tier universities are cautious in adopting the new methods for the
teaching of GE while opting for an emphasis on texts and great books.
Meanwhile the courses utilising creatively the new methods that have been
cropping up in the top-notch institutions are testimony to such possibility of
teaching and learning. Creativity, it goes without saying, enjoys an equally wide
spectrum of quality. Employing a variety of teaching methods does not make a
course better than a lecture course that is intellectually stimulating. Similarly, a
lecture course with a long list of reading assignment may not benefit students as
much as another utilising the various new methods.
For the academic institution and the senior administration that sets its
policy and direction, it is a choice between accommodating mass consumption
and raising popular standards. The choice will set the guideline for the quality of
the courses, whatsoever the teaching and learning methods.
30
Interdisciplinarity:
Not few Hong Kong’s institutions see this as a solution to their extremely
specialised faculty. A good interdisciplinary course, however, is more than the
delivery of two different ways of looking at the same thing with two different sets
of jargon. In the words of a Fulbrighter, interconnectivity between the disciplines
and disciplinary formation of knowledge has to be worked out carefully.
Conceptually, such a course is more difficult for the student in terms of
intellectual content because s/he is actually learning the technical languages, the
ways of thinking and analysis of two disciplines, which can be very confusing for
the novice. In Hong Kong, the reason for designing an interdisciplinary course
team taught by two or more professors is due to their focussed specialisation.
The interconnectivity that requires a good grasp of the essentials of each other’s
discipline may be harder to acquire. Team teaching, moreover, is no less
energy-consuming and, if done well, requires collaboration that may involve
significant investment of time. All these factors must be taken into consideration
when designing interdisciplinary courses.
Reaching Out
A few Fulbrighters have suggested the need for the institutions to reach
out to the public. Students, parents and society in general ought to be informed
of this radical, forward-looking movement in higher education in the city. The
vision of this fundamental reform has to be explained to society. Publically-
funded, all these institutions are duty bound to inform society of how tax-payers’
money is used for a major change in higher education that can reap tremendous
consequences for society. When parents often still support their children in
higher education, the vision of the reform, which may run counter to the more
expedient, short-term interests of students and parents, must be communicated
and shared with society. For the GE reform to have a firm start, a general
atmosphere of positive attitude in society towards this momentous reform has to
be fostered.
31
The nurturing of the mind is a daunting and difficult task. The nurturing of
exceptional minds is even more humbling for the educator. But the collective
effort to start nourishing future generations of intellectual calibre, whose
presence in society will in turn raise the quality of thought of its youth, is a vision
a first world global city must embrace. For a materialist, capitalist city like Hong
Kong, the juggling act between accommodating mass expectation of expediency
and pragmatism from education and increasing popular wisdom and intelligence
is far from easy. The new methods of teaching and learning, with out-of-class
activities, IT support, etc., are increasingly popular on school levels. Given that
trend, is it still necessary for tertiary institutions to teach their GE courses
similarly? Or should they provide college students with more intellectual content
and input, in the form of the learning of ideas, humanistic or scientific? Short of
the creative quality combination of the two, that choice between high level
intellectual content in the world of ideas and experiential, activity oriented
learning will define the calibre of universities one from the other.
32
Postscript
For all the accomplishments and set-back during the last four years of the
Fulbright Hong Kong General Education Programme, the one undeniable fact is
the foresight and magnanimity of Mr. and Mrs. Po and Helen Chung, supported
by the open-mindedness of the University Grants Council of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region and the Council of International Exchange of
Scholars in America. Out of this collaboration between private donations and
public-funding, the east and west, Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions can boast of
impeccable hardware and state-of-the-art, sophisticated software for the
momentous change that will affect not only the future of Hong Kong, but also the
Mainland. Other cities and nations in the region, observing the success of this
collaborative effort, and appreciating the vision and generosity of Hong Kong’s
benefactors, are following suit. The future of the region will look very different.