Striking a Balance Among Major Curriculum Ideologies in General Education Curriculum Design and Planning Among Hong Kong Universities

Abstract

With qualitative document analysis, this research focuses on Hong Kong's intended General Education Curriculum (GEC) across the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong, in relation to the macro and meso context by departing from the dimensions of (1) rationale; (2) aims and objectives; as well as (3) content. Their GEC can generally be viewed as transmitting a body of structured pure knowledge under academic rationalism, offering fluency and training of useful skills and dispositions under social efficiency, facilitating self-actualization through personalized process of inquiry under child-centeredness, as well as analyzing society and constructing changes under social reconstructionism.

Keywords

Curriculum design and planning curriculum ideologies general education higher education interdisciplinary curriculum undergraduate education Hong Kong

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barrot

J. S.

(2021). K to 12 curriculum reform in the Philippines: Towards making students future ready. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1973959

Bowen

G. A.

(2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative ResearchJournal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Brennan

(2011). National curriculum: A political-educational tangle. Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500307

Carr

(1998). The curriculum in and for a democratic society. Curriculum Studies, 6(3), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369800200044

Cheng

K. M.

(2010). Shanghai and Hong Kong: Two distinct examples of education reform in China. Organisation for economic co-operation and development, strong performers and successful performers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States, 83–115.

Comer

D. R.

(2013). Educating students to prepare for and respond to crises that affect organizations: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Management Education, 37(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912467954

Cope

M. R.

Muirbrook

K. M.

Jackson

J. E.

Park

P. N.

Ward

Child

Jarvis

J. A.

(2021). Experiences with general education: How sense of community shapes students’ perceptions. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211050399. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050399

Counts

G. S.

(1978). Dare the school build a new social order? (Vol. 143). SIU Press.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

10.

Davis

J. R.

(1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. Oryx Press.

11.

Diamond

R. M.

(2008). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.

12.

Eisner

E. W.

(1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Prentice Hall.

13.

Eisner

E. W.

Vallance

(Eds.) (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1–18). McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

14.

Erekson

(1992). Technology education from the academic rationalist theoretical perspective. Volume 3 Issue 2 (spring 1992).

15.

Flick

(2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

16.

Goodson

(2005). Learning, curriculum and life politics: The selected works of Ivor F. Goodson. Psychology Press.

17.

J. W.

(2002). Curriculum documents as representation of institutional ideology–a comparative study. Language and Education, 16(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780208666832

18.

Holley

K. A.

(2009). Interdisciplinary strategies as transformative change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9121-4

19.

Hothem

(2013). Integrated general education and the extent of interdisciplinarity: The university of California–Merced's core 1 curriculum. The Journal of General Education, 62(2–3), 84–111. https://doi.org/10.5325/jgeneeduc.62.2-3.0084

20.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

21.

Huang

(2017). Transfers of general education from the United States to east Asia: Case studies of Japan, China, and Hong Kong. The Journal of General Education, 66(1–2), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.5325/jgeneeduc.66.1-2.0077

22.

Ivanitskaya

Clark

Montgomery

Primeau

(2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984

23.

Jacobs

H. H.

(1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

24.

Jaffee

(2012). The general education initiative in Hong Kong: Organized contradictions and emerging tensions. Higher Education, 64(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9487-y

25.

Jaffee

(2013). Building general education with Hong Kong characteristics. International Education, 42(2), 4.

26.

Jenkins

Shipman

M. D.

(1976). Curriculum: An introduction. Open Books Publishing Limited.

27.

Jenkins

S. B.

(2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations inventory. The Curriculum Journal, 20(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170902948798

28.

Kácovský

Jedličková

Kuba

Snětinová

Surynková

Vrhel

Urválková

E. S.

(2021). Lower secondary intended curricula of science subjects and mathematics: A comparison of the Czech republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovenia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1978557

29.

Lam

J. C.

Walker

R. M.

Hills

(2014). Interdisciplinarity in sustainability studies: A review. Sustainable Development, 22(3), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.533

30.

Lau

D. C. M.

(2001). Analysing the curriculum development process: Three models. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360100200107

31.

Leask

(2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge.

32.

Lee

S. J.

Kriewaldt

Roberts

(2021). Cross–national comparisons of inquiry learning in secondary geography curricula. The Curriculum Journal, 33(1), 42–60.

33.

Lui

Lam

(2022). The critical engagement of higher education with future crises. Dewey Studies, 5(2), 345–362.

34.

Malcolm

M. R.

(2018). A new era for liberal arts: Global changes and emerging possibilities. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 1311–1319. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.42.13111319

35.

McLachlan

Fleer

Edwards

(2018). Early childhood curriculum: Planning, assessment and implementation. Cambridge University Press.

36.

Mnguni

(2013). The curriculum ideology of the South African secondary school biology. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v33n2a700

37.

Mnguni

(2021). The integration of different curriculum ideologies in a school science subject. Education Sciences, 11(9), 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090551

38.

Morgan

(2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77.

39.

Morris

Adamson

(2010). Curriculum, schooling and society in Hong Kong (vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.

40.

Paulsen

M. B.

Wells

C. T.

(1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018785219220

41.

Peña-Sandoval

Jiménez

T. L.

(2020). Curriculum ideologies and conceptions of diversity and social justice. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 50(177), 738–757. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053147086

42.

Raffel

Roberts

(1997). Introducing educational reconstruction: The philosophy and practice of transforming society through education. Caddo Gap Press.

43.

Ralph

Birks

Chapman

Francis

(2014). Future-proofing nursing education: An Australian perspective. Sage Open, 4(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014556633

44.

Richter

D. M.

Paretti

M. C.

(2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802710185

45.

Rutledge

M. L.

Lampley

S. A.

(2017). Can a diversified instructional approach featuring active learning improve biology Students’ attitudes toward general education? Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(6), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_046_06_20

46.

Schiro

(2012). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Sage.

47.

Schleicher

(2018). Educating learners for their future, not our past. ECNU Review of Education, 1(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.30926/ecnuroe2018010104

48.

Schommer

(1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213418

49.

Schraw

Dennison

R. S.

(1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

50.

Shek

D. T. L.

F. K. Y.

Chai

W. Y.

(2015). General university requirements at Hong Kong polytechnic university: Evaluation findings based on student focus groups. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(8), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.960362

51.

Smith

Lovat

T. J.

(2003). Curriculum: Action on reflection. Social Science Press. p75.

52.

Spring

(2012). Globalization of education. International Journal of Chinese Education, 1(2), 139–176. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340002

53.

Stone

Friedman

(2002). A case study in the integration of assessment and general education: Lessons learned from a complex process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930220128760

54.

Tahirsylaj

(2018). Curriculum field in the making: Influences that led to social efficiency as dominant curriculum ideology in progressive era in the US. Euro-JCS, 4(1), 618–628.

55.

Tahirsylaj

Fazliu

(2021). From content-to competence-based curricula–an educational account of curriculum policy in Kosovo. European Education, 53(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2021.1971541

56.

University Grants Committee. (2012, June 12). SG’s speech at the International Conference on General Education “3+3+4” academic structure – a new era for General Education. https://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/about/press_speech_other/speech/2012/sp20120612.html

57.

Van den Akker

(2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In van den Akker

Kuiper

Hameyer

(Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Kluwer, 10, 978–94.

58.

Weick

K. E.

(1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875

59.

Wong

Chiu

Y. L. T.

Copsey-Blake

Nikolopoulou

(2021). A mapping of graduate attributes: What can we expect from UK university students? Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1882405

60.

Yang

(2016). The east-west axis? Liberal arts education in East Asian universities. In Liberal arts education and colleges in East Asia (pp. 27–37). Springer.

61.

Zha

(2012). Is there an emerging Chinese model of the university? In Portraits of 21st century Chinese universities (pp. 451–471). Springer.

62.

Zohrabi

(2008). Researching into curriculum components. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 49–69.