Navigating the policy borrowing process of general education among the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong

Abstract

Since the introduction of the learning-to-learn reform in 2000, Hong Kong policy-makers indicated that they would engage extensively and continuously in policy borrowing based on other high-performing jurisdictions worldwide. An illustrative example is the introduction of the 3 + 3 + 4 New Academic Structure since 2009. However, one of the areas that remain unexplored is the introduction of a broadening General Education among all eight publicly funded universities in the additional year of the four-year undergraduate education. Through narrative review on the basis of Ochs and Phillips’s theoretical model of policy borrowing in education, this article aims to offer an overview of the introduction of General Education among these universities and how it has been undergoing the four respective stages of (1) cross-national attraction; (2) decision; (3) implementation; and (4) internalisation or indigenisation. This will touch upon evaluating the key features being borrowed, adapted, and implemented, reviewing the relevant processes and outcomes, as well as highlighting the issues and challenges that have been and will be experienced. All these evidence-based perspectives can allow practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to better understand the complex policy borrowing process of General Education as a global educational initiative.

Introduction

Many learning systems worldwide have been constantly transformed in search of the best fit for quality education (Szeto, 2020). Educational policy-makers have always been importing policies and practices from systems that they perceive as being more successful than their own, or informing reforms and development through learning, referencing, and borrowing in relation to these counterparts (Forestier et al., 2016). Followed by these policymakers’ conscious and deliberate adoption of a policy that originates in one context to another, a series of terminologies have been emerging in the literature due to their varying theoretical and analytical perspectives as well as metaphorical foci, such as policy copying, transfer, importation, appropriation, and assimilation (Marsh & Sharman, 2009). Meanwhile, these policy-makers will put emphasis on various policy attributes, which are usually in the form of goals, structure and content, ideologies, administrative arrangements, institutions, ideas and attitudes, as well as lessons and implications (Graf & Lohse, 2021). Nonetheless, one should not neglect or undermine the context-specific diversity as any common policy agenda can play out differently across systems with their own histories, cultures, politics, and social structures (Braun et al., 2011). After all, any simplistic borrowing and uncritical international transfer which remains insensitive to the local contextual factors is likely to result in implementation problems and policy failure (Crossley & Watson, 2003). At the same time, when there are any competing, conflicting, or even contradicting tensions within or between various components in the implementation process, discrepancies would emerge subsequently, which undermine the ultimate success of a policy initiative (Smith, 1973).

In Hong Kong, policy-makers have not only replicated the education ideology from the United Kingdom, they also attained inspiration and knowledge about educational policies, programmes, and initiatives from other countries like the United States, Australia, and Canada (Dang & Tang, 2018). All the philosophies, theories, ideas, and strategies borrowed from the West can only become successful when they are consistent with, justified by, and held together by traditional Eastern or Chinese beliefs and norms (Tan, 2018). In fact, Hong Kong’s learning system has long been maintaining as an evolving hybrid of Chinese culture and Western traditions, where schools enjoy the best essence of both worlds (Cheng, 2010). The cultural proximity to both China and the Western world has also been constructing Hong Kong as a cultural broker as well as verifying the continuing relevance of leaning toward both East and West, especially the various Eastern and Western facets and influences in the local learning system (Lo et al., 2022). Since the government’s initiation of the learning-to-learn educational reform, Hong Kong’s learning system has been entering into a new phase of borrowing which involves looking globally and locally for inspiration (Education Commission, 2000). This mainly involves policy referencing and borrowing through scanning the horizon for other systems’ policies and practices, introducing monitoring and benchmarking exercises for international recognition, as well as engaging with local and overseas expertise (Forestier et al., 2016). A salient aspect of policy borrowing is the introduction of the New Academic Structure (NAS) in 2009, which is part of the aforementioned learning-to-learn educational reform (Xing & Ng, 2012). Since its introduction, Hong Kong has been practising the new 3 + 3 + 4 model, meaning that all students will complete 3 years of compulsory junior secondary schooling, and everyone will receive the opportunity to move onto 3 years of senior secondary education. The new secondary curriculum has been shortened from the former 7 years to current 6 years, while the tertiary sector also changed its degree programme structure from 3 years to 4 years accordingly (Tong et al., 2020). All eight publicly funded universities have subsequently come up with a broadening General Education (GE) programme for the additional year of the new four-year undergraduate education. As a highly Western-oriented construct, it becomes important to explore how some of the key features of GE have been borrowed, adapted, and implemented in the context of Hong Kong universities in the last decade. To this end, this narrative review article aims to map the development of Hong Kong’s GE against Ochs and Phillips (2002)’s theoretical model of policy borrowing by highlighting how GE as an illustrative educational borrowing exercise has been planning and designed, and implemented and executed across the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong. Accordingly, this article aims answer the following two questions:

1. What are the characteristics of the policy borrowing process of GE among the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong?

2. What are the issues and challenges associated with the policy borrowing of GE among the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong?

This article aims to bring together the two worlds of academic scholarship and real-life practice with regard to the policy borrowing process of GE among the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong. Practically speaking, it aims to contribute to the relatively thin empirical base by examining what works, in what context, and with what impacts in authentic contexts and with pragmatic details. Theoretically speaking, it aims to unfold the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and theories behind the moves and activities, which can allow one to better make sound professionally driven judgements in response to the particular needs and contexts of their students, institutions, and communities. Therefore, the remainder of this article proceeds as follows. The first part of this article will be introducing and justifying the overarching theoretical framework used in this study. This article will then discuss each of the four stages of the policy borrowing process one by one by highlighting some of the characteristics of GE as the policy borrowing among Hong Kong universities. A further discussion will then be the issues and challenges of the policy borrowing of GE as reflected by the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong. This article will conclude by highlighting some of the study limitations and further lines of inquiry.

Theoretical Framework

Policy borrowing refers to a mechanism of policy transfer, which features voluntary and explicit transfer. It is also based on conscious decision-making and involves particular policies that one place attempts to imitate, emulate, or copy bilaterally from another (Lai, 2022). According to Chow (2014), there are four major goals of policy borrowing, namely solving internal problems, minimising the uncertainty of new policies, delivering political actions, and seeking assistance. It remains highly complex, which cannot be thought of as an independent process but as part of a wider policy process (Wolman, 1992). Therefore, one must ensure a comprehensive understanding of what happens at each step of transference from one context to another (Burdett & O’Donnell, 2016). In particular, there is a four-stage context-driven theoretical framework of policy borrowing in education proposed by Ochs and Phillips (2002), which is frequently used and to date one of the most comprehensive ones in the field of international and comparative education. It is helpful for unpacking the complex layers of the policy borrowing process with the underpinnings of various aspects rigorously and systematically, especially when different relationships and events are intertwined within a contextual setting. The first stage is cross-national attraction which investigates the antecedents that facilitate policy-borrowing decisions. This mainly touches upon impulses as internal preconditions that attract policy changes and externalising potentials as external stimuli that advocate change. The second stage is decision, which can be categorised into theoretical decision that is very abstract and cannot be easily implemented in the home place; realistic or practical decision after assessing feasibility and instantaneity as the critical success factors; quick fix decision that is made to solve an urgent problem; and phoney decision that is made instantly for political reasons without thorough consideration. The third stage is implementation, which refers to the adaptation process, suitability of the context, and support or resistance from various policy actors. The final stage is internalisation or indigenisation, which involves assessing the impact of a policy in a new context by re-assessing the original motives and objectives, compatibility in the home context, and synergy with the system, as well as reflecting on and evaluating the entire borrowing exercise.

In this article, the author will employ the four stages of policy borrowing in education proposed by Ochs and Phillips (2002) as the overarching theoretical framework in making sense of GE among the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong. This will involve looking into Hong Kong’s GE by mapping the wide range of significant themes against the four respective stages of cross-national attraction, decision, implementation, and internationalisation or indigenisation. This article aims to put the aforementioned theoretical model of educational policy borrowing into the context of Hong Kong’s GE for a practical test, which can reveal the characteristics as well as issues and challenges. To this end, the author will offer a narrative review of the general situation of policy borrowing of GE across the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong (Paré & Kitsiou, 2017).

General Education Among Hong Kong Universities as Policy Borrowing

Stage One: Cross-National Attraction

Addressing the Perceived Inadequacies of the Higher Education Sector

Since more than two decades ago, the Hong Kong government has already highlighted the imperative to address the limitations and deficits within its existing local learning system to enable one to attain life-long learning and all-round education, especially in secondary and tertiary education. Meanwhile, it has criticised learning by then as highly examination-driven, whereas scant attention is put on cultivating a learning-to-learn disposition. Furthermore, it has further commented that students have always been granted little room to think, explore, and create (Chan, 2000). Therefore, one of the key recommendations for the higher education sector as proposed by the government is inviting universities to review the functions, contents, focuses, and modes of the teaching of their undergraduate programmes, so as to strike an optimal balance between the breadth and depth of these programmes. This can allow students to master the necessary knowledge and skills for specific professions or disciplines, expose to other learning areas, and cultivate a sense of integrity, positive attitude, a broad vision, and important generic skills (Hong Kong Education Commission, 2000). It is also an important response to the long-standing public criticism that higher education has too early narrowing and streamlining of students’ study through professional and disciplinary programmes and majors, which lamentably make their perspectives remain narrow and superficial rather than multiple and integrative (Jaffee, 2013). After a few years, the Hong Kong government formally announced the imperative need for introducing an additional undergraduate year for all students to receive more time and space to cultivate a broader knowledge base and a more solid foundation for whole-person development, which caters to their diverse learning needs, aptitudes, abilities, and interests (University Grants Committee, 2005). Since then, under the overarching philosophy of delivering an undergraduate education with relevant and contextual breadth supporting depth as an inverted T-shaped structure, all eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong have come up with their own GE as a holistic and coherent core curriculum that complements and enhances the broad discipline areas and the progressive selection and pursuit of the major (University Grants Committee, 2012).

Responding to the Contemporary Dynamic Labour Market

Hong Kong as an Asia’s World City is aspired to become the educational hub of the region, which requires a strongly developed higher education sector (University Grants Committee, 2004). At the same time, Hong Kong has been transforming from a manufacture-based to a service-based economy, followed by integrating into the larger globalising knowledge economy (Lai & Maclean, 2011). Higher education is also the core of Hong Kong’s future economic development (University Grants Committee, 2002). To these ends, it becomes crucial for training a highly educated and capable workforce as the human capital with all the necessary developmental abilities to raise social productivity, sustain the free market economies, and enhance economic competitiveness (Van Der Wende, 2014). Meanwhile, many leaders and employers recognise the need for graduates to rectify their deficits by supplementing their technical expertise with diverse and adaptable skill sets which would enable them to always approach their work with confidence and exploit the appropriate opportunities in the ever-evolving environment (Lam & Tang, 2021). Therefore, they strongly support the use of GE as an important component of reforming the existing higher education curriculum to cultivate students to become employable by remaining critical and agile thinkers, effective communicators, creative problem-solvers, and willing initiative-takers (Logan & Curry, 2015). The external pressures for vocational readiness and economic utilitarianism are pushing higher education to gear towards the practical and pragmatic dimensions, or even become more market sensitive (Jung & Postiglione, 2015). The move of Hong Kong in reforming the higher education curriculum echoes the global trend calling for nurturing students with generic and transferable skills (Shek, 2019). In fact, Hong Kong encounters very similar challenges and pressures in the quickly evolving era of globalisation as many counterparts around the world, especially in terms of producing human capital with all-around excellence and competencies (Huang, 2017). Therefore, the introduction of GE is perceived by the Hong Kong government as a prominent means to leverage its global position by generating the types of graduates required for the new century ahead (Shay, 2015). In view of the potential dangers of slipping behind, this will also enable Hong Kong to align with or even surpass the more established and mature as well as younger and emerging competitors which are quickly catching up on the global landscape (Skidmore, 2012).

Preparing for the Complex and Uncertain Future

Another important source for the surge of attention and interest in GE is that the narrow and technical education dominated in Hong Kong’s higher education system does not prepare students to think, learn, and prepare for the challenges and opportunities ahead in the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment (Lewis, 2018). As universities worldwide are seeking to empower and transform their students in preparation for the future issues and challenges that are currently taking place or will be emerging in the future, students must be trained to be both resilient and adaptable with the necessary skills, competencies, dispositions, and mentalities to the changing circumstances (Sneader & Singhal, 2020). According to Schleicher (2018), the emphasis on cultivating the fundamental and core human traits of heart and mind can allow education to stay ahead of all the novel changes and ill-defined problems that might come along in the changing and unfamiliar landscape. Therefore, GE as a student-centred and learning-oriented educational model has become appealing as it emphasises personal enrichment and resourcefulness in a rapidly changing world (Sun, 2018). Meanwhile, it bears resemblance to the idea of future readiness, which advocates a comprehensive and long-term view of educational success by involving learning, lifework, and well-being, such that students can meaningfully engage with changing societies, jobs, and technologies (Ng & Wong, 2020). To actualise the future-oriented nature of GE, many Hong Kong universities incorporate an interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary approach when structuring their curriculum. This involves thinking about the connections and integrations, as well as constraints and conflicts across various disciplines, dimensions, and perspectives, in order to unearth the constituent elements within the real-life challenges and crises as well as their underlying relationships, interactions, and intersections (Lui & Lam, 2022). According to Zhao (2015), GE is all about inventing the future rather than fixing the past, which leaders universities to cultivate the vision, courage, and commitment to make drastic and difficult changes over their past accomplishments and long-standing practices, even for a high-performing system like Hong Kong. At the same time, GE can afford and empower students to capitalise on the resources and opportunities, which in turn allow them to transform their own lives and solve all the problems confronting them in the future ahead (Lam, 2022).

Stage Two: Decision

Referencing From and Benchmarking With Selected Overseas Institutions

When Hong Kong universities are coming up with their own GE programmes which often start from scratch, they first look at the mixture of prevailing standards, requirements, approaches, and practices in selected overseas institutions around the world, especially counterparts with similar values and aims as well as unique strengths and high-performing features. Some of the illustrative instances include the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore with well-developed GE models (Tsui, 2012). As they are exploring and planning ahead their ideal GE prototype and discourse for their own university, they list and detail the relevant information and worldwide literature for undergoing systematic and rigorous comparison and contrast on the discussion table, such as curriculum structure, credit hours, and course types, especially when there is no global consensus on the way to do GE as modern broadening education (Verbeek, 2020). This reflects a prevalent practice of importing higher education provisions from overseas, standards and curriculum, as well as values and methods through benchmarking as well as other forms of learning, emulation, and inspiration (Wu & Sorrell, 2016). An example is the establishment of the Research Centre for General Education under the Office of University General Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. It is responsible for collating and conducting research on important topics concerning GE, and coordinating related academic activities. The Centre has since contributed much to the fostering of exchange between the university and tertiary institutes in different regions (Leung, 2016). Among GE initiatives in Asian societies, Hong Kong can be regarded as a late starter (Shek, 2019). Therefore, Hong Kong universities follow the fashion to avoid lagging behind or being sidelined when compared to a wide range of GE role models around the world (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012). Meanwhile, this can ensure quality assurance and timely relevance of their newly designed GE programmes by mapping against those legitimate and recognised world standards (Mok, 2005). Furthermore, the development of the curriculum can always keep abreast with international trends, such that the overall learning experiences can prepare students for the global dynamics ahead (Mok & Chan, 2008). The success of formulating the series of GE-related decisions hinges on the decision-makers’ thorough reflection and intense debates internally about what they wanted before they started looking at the most relevant details of other institutions, followed by undergoing the process of mixing, matching, selecting, and contextualising the desirable features extracted from the referencing and benchmarking in relation to the cultures, traditions, and strengths of the university (Morris, 2012).

Recruiting Renowned and Professional Overseas Scholars

To further meet the unique needs of Hong Kong universities initiating new GE programmes, the Fulbright-Hong Kong GE Project was initiated, which solicited applications from renowned experts in GE from diverse institutions throughout the United States in all relevant undergraduate disciplines (Chung, 2012). From 2008 to 2012, there is a total of 24 Fulbright Scholars who spent either a year or a semester in residence and were supplemented by four Fulbright Senior Specialists who spent 6 weeks working with Hong Kong colleagues to come up with new GE programmes. All these Fulbrighters worked both as professional consultants, critical stimulants, and intellectual resources to the universities where they were individually assigned and as a collective group that collaborated to serve all universities. Their major responsibilities have been delivering lectures, leading seminars, conducting workshops, moderating panel discussions, as well as consulting individuals and groups, which touch upon a wide range of areas like interdisciplinary learning and teaching, curriculum structure and content, pedagogical innovations, assessment reforms, capacity building and professional development, as well as administrative structure and support (Gaff, 2014). All these passionate and enthusiastic Fulbrighters have been serving as insider-outsiders, who tinker with the GE that was their expertise while being careful to synthesise and adapt their counsel to that of Hong Kong’s unique contexts and diverse stakeholders (Logan & Curry, 2015). While these advisory Fulbrighters have greatly influenced the development of GE among Hong Kong universities, especially in the early designing and planning as well as implementation and execution phase of the reform, the genuine engineers of all these changes are to be found within the universities themselves (Freake, 2012). An example is the visit of the Fulbrighters to the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology for introductory seminars and two subsequent break-out sessions in 2009. As the university is a research-based university focusing on science and technology, all participants discussed how they can arouse the interest of their undergraduates who received science education during their high school but are less cultivated in non-science disciplines to pursue an all-round education during their studies. They also explored whether any prescribed elements help deliver GE in alignment with their institutional character, and if so, how they define these elements (Undergraduate Core Education Team, n.d.). After all, their success in the initiation of GE can be attributed to their abilities in terms of drawing upon more contextualised understandings of and interactions with the Hong Kong system, which leads to more holistic and comprehensive reform that addresses issues inside and beyond the universities, rather than focusing on specific and narrow strategies (Adamson et al., 2017).

Formulation of Well-Informed Collective Decision in a Distributed Network

The Hong Kong government is the prominent stakeholder initiating the GE reform and setting the relevant agenda. The University Grants Committee (UGC) has established a 3 + 3 + 4 group to look after all the universities by offering overall directions and strategic guidance, ensuring they align and sharing the experience with one another, and bearing the resources and readiness for changes and transformations (Freake, 2012). The UGC has been thinking about and talking to each of the universities about the potential issues and challenges when actualising the GE programmes, such as hiring new academics, securing sufficient buildings and funding, as well as dealing with the double cohort of students when the last group to complete the old seven-year curriculum and the first group to nish the new six-year programmes will enter the university at the same time (Verbeek, 2020). Nonetheless, it has never intervened and involved in the decision-making of GE-related issues among all universities by mandating requirements and imposing deadlines (Gaff, 2014). Each of the universities has been working out their own GE-related policies and practices, such as the rationales, nomenclature, overall conceptual framework, proposed areas and course requirements, pedagogy and assessment of learning outcomes, as well as infrastructure and quality assurance mechanisms, after theoretical and practical considerations in view of their own circumstances (Tsui, 2012). This subsequently gives rise to a great deal of diversity in the design, language, and emphasis of GE across universities (Jaffee, 2013). Take the Common Core Curriculum at the University of Hong Kong as an example, to make the GE reform goes beyond rhetoric and create a genuine difference in student learning, the university has established steering committees, subcommittees, and working groups for exchange, discussion, and debate among relevant stakeholders both externally and internally. Meanwhile, it has been generating reports, notes, and position papers, as well as holding consultation sessions, reform retreats, formal meetings, public lectures, experience-sharing seminars, exchange forums, and issue-based workshops on a wide range of GE-related aspects. Furthermore, a number of the enlisted recommendations have been reviewed on the basis of the comments received and concerns raised, followed by approval by the senior administration and management (The University of Hong Kong, n.d.-a).

Stage Three: Implementation

Articulating Shared Framework and Common Language

Although many Hong Kong universities have the distinctive advantage of initiating their GE programmes from scratch, this presents the lingering challenge of transforming so many things drastically at the same time (Lanford, 2016). Both the shared framework for thinking and common language for discussion is in place at the beginning for consultation and discussion, followed by all individuals refining, debating, and reinterpreting them in an ongoing manner. All these discourses are helpful for keeping all stakeholders on the same page through mutual understanding, communication, and practice of GE (Ross, 2003). Meanwhile, strong adherence to shared educational values and commitments can ensure the reform remain rooted in its original purpose and deflect the discussion from other special vested interests among individuals (Awbrey, 2005). For example, at the University of Hong Kong, the notion of Common Core is utilised to delimit the scope of the curriculum and define its essence. The former word “common” suggests that the curriculum focuses on the commonality of human experiences, while the latter word “core” suggests that this component focuses on issues that have been and continue to be of profound significance to humankind, the core intellectual skills that all students should cultivate, and the core values they should uphold (Common Core Curriculum, n.d.-c). As the GE curriculum is adjusting and responding to the changing needs and interests of students, society, and expanding realms of knowledge, many universities kickstart the planning and design by departing from the perspective of student learning. This implies that they will first consider what kind of person university students are expected to assume and to be produced by the university, which is often reflected by the official list of graduate attributes (Leung, 2012). An example is the recently revamped Common Core Programme offered by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, which intentionally includes attributes and skill sets that are desired for its graduates and presented in forms of competencies, namely communication (language accuracy and form, language meaning, language use, mode of communication), personal development (aesthetics; lifelong learning; self-awareness); problem-solving (application of creative thinking; application of critical thinking; evaluation of information and sources; problem definition); social responsibility (civic engagement; collaboration; cultural awareness; ethical awareness) (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2022). All these attributes are helpful for thinking about the much broader aims of undergraduate education, and the more specific learning experience and environment created to facilitate these developments (Tsui, 2012).

Mapping Structured and Strategic Developmental Trajectory

The actualisation of GE within the university is a dynamic process rather than a static event (Wise et al., 2022). Therefore, long-term planning and development offer sufficient time and space for all parties to reflect on, consolidate, and deepen their practices and experiences, which can attain more promising and sustainable results, and ensure all corresponding moves are keeping abreast with the ever-evolving and unanticipated changes (Edgecombe et al., 2013). Focusing on a theme once at a time and inviting all to give their best shot can ensure all stakeholders feeling more committed and efficacious. They can become more encouraged to scale up gradually and progressively as they are spotting effective practices, familiarising with the dynamics, and assessing their interim progress for further improvements (Alabi & Okemakinde, 2010). As people come and go, any initiative that tends to become individual-driven can easily lose momentum or even fail once those key players are left. Therefore, institutionalising a well-established and well-operating system for GE can ensure that all the initiatives endure and proceed, regardless of how individuals and things change (Bhagwan, 2020). For instance, when the University of Hong Kong is putting forward the Common Core Curriculum, the senior management and administration proposed and circulated a detailed and transparent action plan with five phases of development from 2006 to 2016 as the time when the first new cohort of undergraduate students graduate by then. They outline all the relevant components, anticipated outcomes, concrete deliverables, responsible personnel, and contingency plans, which include conceptualisation of a new curriculum, exploration and experimentation, refinement and consolidation, partial implementation, and review and renewal of the curriculum. There are also corresponding human, financial, physical, and professional resources to be strategically directed as concrete and practical infrastructural support (The University of Hong Kong, n.d.-a). Another example is the GE under the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which has focused on clarifying the goals and needs of the GE within the university; restructuring the curriculum and categorising the GE courses, introducing a new and mandatory GE Foundation Programme, as well as introducing effective management and quality assurance mechanisms (Office of University General Education, n.d.).

Sustaining Open and Ongoing Communication and Interactions

As many places around the world, the implementation of GE in Hong Kong has long been receiving very polarised responses, which range from active engagement to deep resistance (Kochhar-Lindgren, 2016). There are occasionally some stakeholders remain paternalistic and condescending towards opinions, or even safeguard their habitual positions. Therefore, it is crucial for opening up multilateral dialogues where all parties are equally represented, such that the relationship can remain vibrant and responsive (Behrstock-Sherratt et al., 2012). This involves an extensive and continual process of deliberation and recalibration of the differences and disagreements, and supports all stakeholders to comprehend, anticipate, and appreciate others’ needs, wants, and expectations. As the decision to introduce a GE-related initiative is often made at a senior level, many Hong Kong universities have been maintaining close conversations to allow all the feedback and suggestions from various stakeholders are factoring in, revising, or fine-tuning the reform details as early as possible and throughout the process. This can also allow the frontline individuals involved to be empowered with a stronger sense of belonging, ownership, and commitment (Cairney, 2019). The diverse education philosophies outlined by individuals can easily stop or even reverse the reform process, which implies the process is a constant and long struggle (Kwok, 2018). As the reform is not merely a curricular but a cultural change, these moves can even avoid apathetic and not buy-in stakeholders who can lead to the turning down of reform proposals and drawing out of reform process, which all result in unattainable reform goals (Shek et al., 2017). An illustrative example is the networked GE with new linkages and feedback loops at the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, whereas many academics are directly involved in curriculum development and course approval for an evolving and versatile curriculum (Verbeek, 2020). The transformative culture should be firmly articulated by the leadership, trickled down to individuals, and diffused across universities. All stakeholders should recognise themselves as interconnected and interdependent in driving the success. Without their tolerance and patience, and optimism and resilience, it would be impossible to shed entrenched routines and practices, embrace uncertainties and ambiguities, and overcome cultural and structural constraints during the GE reform (Lai, 2022).

Stage Four: Internalisation or Indigenisation

Delivering Comprehensive and Competent Learning Experience

As GE has become far more mature in Hong Kong, apart from deepening the formal curricular components, many universities go further by developing co-curricular and extra-curricular activities partnered with or even initiated by students and other stakeholders. The intentional integration of academic learning and out-of-classroom learning can result in positive synergisms. Therefore, the provision of student learning should not merely be confined within the classrooms and campuses, but further extended to the wider communities and societies, which can ensure students can develop their potential beyond university and sustain lifelong learning (McGinley & Li, 2021). Hong Kong universities are drawing on unique characteristics and positionings as well as strengths and potentials associated with various stakeholders, such as community organisations, non-formal learning institutions, and business enterprises, which further contribute to students’ individualised learning repositories. Meanwhile, this can help shape an effective educational ecosystem with a strong alignment around common aspirations, goals, and priorities regarding student learning. The mutual commitment to such a common agenda allows all stakeholders to remain united and cohesive by rowing in the same direction in terms of leveraging opportunities for quality student learning. While there is essential content that is fundamental to a GE programme, the wider local and global contexts that influence students’ learning should be considered at the same time. For instance, the Education University of Hong Kong introduces experiential learning courses as well as co-curricular and service learning courses as compulsory parts of their GE curriculum (General Education Office, n.d.-a). Another example is the Hong Kong Baptist University which requires all undergraduate students to complete an interdisciplinary GE capstone course with elements of service learning, service leadership education, and experiential learning, or an interdisciplinary independent study on an individual or a group basis (General Education Office, n.d.-b). A further illustration going beyond the formal curriculum is how University of Hong Kong been collaborating with many learning partners around the world and offered a wide range of hands-on Common Core undergraduate research opportunities for all students to undertake research individually or in a small group via authentic and meaningful thematic research projects rooted in their familiar daily encounters and diverse real-world contexts (Common Core Curriculum, n.d.-a).

Incorporating and Balancing the Chinese and Western Cultures

The success of GE can be maximised when individuals are tapping into and cross-fertilising with the rich local and global cultures and civilisations. Hong Kong universities have been adopting an open and flexible perspective when actualising GE, which allows them to appreciate opposing poles as a driving force and perceive opportunities in contradictions. This reveals a strategic and pragmatic approach to solve problems, meaning that it is not choosing one model, but applying both simultaneously and dynamically (Yang, 2017). Therefore, Hong Kong demonstrates a new form of GE with universities embarking on their own curricular experiments and developing their own best practices. This mainly involves a fusion of values, ideas, and experiences, which targets cultivating students who are learned in the ways of thinking in terms of the East and the West, and who understand the world and the way it is going (Yang, 2016b). Meanwhile, continuous efforts are needed to harmonise and indigenise the often indiscriminately imitated Western concept by developing their own character, especially when the differences between the two traditions is the most fundamental cultural condition in the development of higher education in East Asia (Yang, 2016a). Once recognising the West as fragments internal to the local, individuals will no longer perceive it as an opposing entity but rather as one cultural resource among many others (Chen, 2010). An example is the GE Foundation Programme introduced by the Chinese University of Hong Kong. All students need to study two courses, including “In Dialogue with Humanity” and “In Dialogue with Nature”, which involve engaging in critical dialogues with both nature and humanity, and reflecting on ideal society and good life through the extensive and in-depth study of Chinese and Western classics. Another similar example is their unique collegiate system where each college tailors its own GE programme according to its cultural background and ideals. They offer students formal college GE courses and non-formal college life education activities (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, n.d.). After all, the mutual learning environments and opportunities between the East and the West enable students to see themselves in the larger social context, and connect their life courses with the whole nature and mankind, such that they can lead a meaningful and fulfilling life (Cheng, 2017).

Shifting from Strategic Followers to Outstanding Leaders

Along the way of putting forward GE, universities around the world will invite external examiners from leading universities and foreign experts in the area of GE to look at and comment on their practices. Meanwhile, the curricular leadership will initiate conferences and forums to speak about the reform achievements for attaining more awareness and recognition. Furthermore, there are many international collaboration and exchange initiatives for broadening others’ horizons and perspectives towards the diverse experiences and rich practices on the ground. While overseas countries certainly serve as important anchoring points for Hong Kong universities to frame their GE at the early stage, like how the GE at the Chinese University of Hong Kong was largely taken reference from the American model, there is now a reversing trend when the latter starts to influence the former in return by functioning as an alternative contemporary GE model in Asia with substantial influence and high referencing values (Verbeek, 2020). This challenges the conventional West-to-East flow by assuming that the relatively backward East Asian systems need to emulate and catch up with their more advanced Western counterparts (You, 2019). Hong Kong universities have now become a key source of advanced education knowledge of GE for the West, which starts to change the contemporary tide of educational policy borrowing. For example, the Common Core Curriculum of the University of Hong Kong founded Global Liberal Arts Design Experiment in 2018 so as to co-construct ideas, support, and development opportunities for interdisciplinary taught undergraduate programmes in research-intensive universities around the world. The wide range of work in relation to GE in different sites and under different conditions is also perceived as form of experiments, inventions, discoveries, inquiries, and creations (Common Core Curriculum, n.d.-b). Moreover, the dedicated core Common Core team leading the aforementioned initiative is now initiating further collaborations on sharing GE-related modules, courses, and projects with more extensive coverage and longer duration through the co-creation of a Global Civic University which will put emphasis on relationships between universities and their host urban localities (The University of Hong Kong, n.d.-b). All these epistemic activities among universities formulate global GE policy space, whereas specific discourse and knowledge of education are generated and dispersed (Beech, 2009).

Issues of the Policy Borrowing of General Education in Hong Kong

Appreciation and Articulation of Individuals

If the fundamental issue of ownership in an educational reform remains unaddressed, GE can easily become a patchwork of different educational paradigms stitched from other geographic locations, even if it is selectively incorporated by the relevant individuals (Lanford, 2016). Using the Common Core Curriculum of the University of Hong Kong as an example, after more than a decade of implementation, there is still a concern of lacking a concrete picture regarding what GE exactly is and should achieve when all academics are responsible for shaping the GE curriculum. The potential problem is making the curriculum to become slightly piecemeal and fragmented in orientation when academics have differing or sometimes conflicting viewpoints regarding the visions and goals as well as the strategies and resources to realise them (Lam, 2022). An earlier study by Chan and Luk (2013) also reveals that many teachers in the University of Hong Kong disagreed that their role in the implementation of the new curriculum has been explicitly and clearly defined to them, and hesitated regarding the use of new and innovative approaches to learning and teaching. In reality, a number of teachers still prefer to focus on working on their research agendas or even on their own disciplinary teaching under the dominant academic culture, which somehow are not aligning with the original intention of GE (Verbeek, 2020). Similar perception issues are also found on the side of students like the case of GE at the Hong Kong Polyethnic University. Many students cannot identify the linkage between the various GE components, and their disciplines or professions. Some even challenge the meaning and importance of having GE as a new learning experience in their undergraduate education for their long-term personal development (Shek et al., 2016). Both cases reflect the fact that while a wide range of successful Western features are borrowed and incorporated into Hong Kong’s GE, such as distributional requirements in course selection, outcome-based learning and teaching as the educational approach, and interdisciplinarity as the educational philosophy, this does not necessarily mean that both teachers and students can fully appreciate and articulate all these in the actual implementation (Chiu, 2019). Therefore, one of the lingering issues of policy borrowing in the context of Hong Kong’s GE is how to go beyond reproducing and ritualising these surface features like educational values, curriculum framework, and pedagogical tools with mechanical adoption and adaptation. All these borrowed features from the Western counterparts should turn into starting points for all individuals involved to simulate critical and reflective thinking, and generate more strategic and innovative possibilities of GE in the years ahead.

Attention to Culturally Embedded Diversity

Any introduction of foreign educational innovations like GE will be mediated and moderated by various local circumstances and factors. Therefore, even individuals have started to reflect on the potentials of GE in the context of Hong Kong’s GE, there is still a tendency for them to imagine, perceive, and respond to GE on the basis of their own beliefs and values as well as expectations and assumptions. For instance, GE originated from the West often highlight broadening knowledge, student-centred pedagogy, and formative assessment, which is somehow in conflict with some individuals who emphasise specialised knowledge, teacher-centred pedagogy, and summative assessment. The conflicts among these diverse educational conceptions are understandable when Hong Kong is borrowing foreign educational ideas and practices like the initiation of GE as a new curriculum (Shih, 2019). For instance, a lot of freshmen who are doing their GE at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University at their first year of university study feel pressured and struggled when it comes to the independent and active learning approach. This can be mainly attribute to the reason that a lot of these traditional and pragmatic students were used to didactic teaching and rote memorisation before entering university (Yu et al., 2019). Meanwhile, some academics at the University of Hong Kong strongly insist the maintenance of their disciplinary territories when the Common Core Curriculum at its GE is introduced as they think such type of interdisciplinary education is hampering the pursuit of disciplinary foundation and specialisation (Tsui, 2012). All these reveal another lingering issue which is how Hong Kong’s learning system is always framed along a dichotomy, for instance, either didactic and constructivist models, or disciplinary or interdisciplinary education, which flattens and streamlines the rich and complex nature of learning (Chang & McLaren, 2018). Therefore, it is necessary for making individuals to remain open and inclusive to these potentially competing ideologies, and bear the readiness to revise and transform their original and indigenous worldviews by looking to the West for ideas and inspiration (Tan, 2016). Throughout the policy borrowing process of Hong Kong’s GE, there will be dilemmas continuously emerged as individuals are attempting to imitate, integrate, or adapt the foreign model in the local cultures, mindsets, and contexts. This implies that they should continue exploring common ground to overcome resistance and resolve tensions, and to accommodate differences and highlight similarities (Chai, 2016). After all, erased from the homogenisation and dichotomisation are the attainment of evolving and nuanced understandings of GE as a basis for policy borrowing between Hong Kong and the world (You, 2019).

Maintenance of Knowledge Exchange and Networking

The introduction of GE in universities require the cultivation of a new network with ongoing interactions and relationships across individuals. Nonetheless, in Hong Kong, it seems that some individuals have yet to internalise and normalise GE as a daily part of their academic routines. Instead, many of those who have been embracing and praising GE tend to be self-selected, meaning that they are always enthusiastic and spontaneous by bearing a strong predisposition towards GE-related issues and initiatives (Lanford, 2016). Nonetheless, the problem presented here is that the remaining individuals, whether the opposing or silent ones, will leave unattended and unengaged. This situation can be attributed to the loosely coupled system among many universities where GE is still largely imposing on top of the existing architecture in a rather top-down and discrete manner, which fail to influence and connect with the other components through various linking and looping narratives (Lam, 2022). Therefore, it is necessary for making such GE culture to remain self-sustaining and evolving among individuals in the long run, which offer the time and space for them to give new practices meaning through interpretations and actions. A further problem associated with the policy borrowing process is how individuals can socialise themselves into GE over time to become change agents themselves. An illustrative case is how the GE communities are different from other academic communities when many of the academics involved in GE never fully take up core membership as they remain largely based on their respective faculties and departments, such as the Common Core at the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. As the policy borrowing of GE is an ongoing process, their marginal and contingent engagement can easily lead to a series of tensions and instabilities when they are exploring and negotiating their pluralistic identities in the GE communities, especially over epistemologies, resources, and authorities, which also influence the shaping of the broader collective institutional structure and culture. After all, what matters the most is what genuinely emerged and happened among individuals in a bottom-up manner rather than what is formally decided and enacted by the university under a top-down manner (Verbeek, 2020).

Conclusion

The concept, history, design, practices, and administration of GE vary substantially from university to university and region to region due to their various social, cultural, and educational systems (Xing & Ng, 2012). Nonetheless, the proliferation and variety of GE across many higher education systems around the world demonstrates its vitality and adaptability, especially when many systems can successfully contextualise and craft a uniquely indigenous and culturally considerate interpretation of GE by walking the fine lines of fidelity and accommodation (Boyle, 2019). After all, the key principles throughout the GE reform process in Hong Kong are to avoid conformism, encourage innovations, and maintain diversity (Shi & Lu, 2016). While keeping abreast of global trends and contexts, Hong Kong universities can always adapt and situate things best for the local realities and circumstances at the same time, especially when their existing features and strengths could be maintained and maximised. As reflected by the discussion throughout this article, regarding the policy borrowing of GE among the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong, its overall planning and design as well as implementation and execution remain largely comprehensive and detailed across the four stages of policy borrowing in education proposed by Ochs and Phillips (2002). This article with both practical and theoretical orientations can hopefully shed light on the complex policy borrowing process of GE in the context of Hong Kong publicly funded universities.

As this article aims to offer a general overview of the policy borrowing of GE in the context of Hong Kong publicly funded universities, there are several limitations and lines of further inquiry. First, the employment of narrative review for delivering a qualitative interpretation in this article is somewhat subjective and opportunistic, though it is helpful for gathering and synthesising a volume of literature in a specific subject area like the case of Hong Kong’s GE. In the future, more empirical studies could be done in evaluating the policy-borrowing process in a more objective manner. Second, this article is looking at GE in a rather general manner, though there are plenty of representative examples and relevant instances discussed throughout the article. There can be more specific and in-depth case studies, which involves looking into how each of the university’s GE is carried out in the levels of ideation, curriculum, and management, and in relation to the aforementioned four stages of policy borrowing process. Third, this article offers some information on different practices among the various universities throughout the four respective stages of the policy borrowing process. There can be more detailed comparisons and contrasts of the various universities in terms of what things are they in common and different, why are these emerging and happening, and how are the ultimate outcomes and impacts for all these. Lastly, this article tends to shed light on the ideal and promising sides of GE when a number of sources are coming from publications prepared by the Hong Kong government and universities. Therefore, more attention could be spent on documenting and evaluating the achievements and shortcomings of the policy borrowing process of GE brought by the varying conceptions, values, and practices across cultures, contexts, and actors. To highlight all these important dimensions involves further solicitation of viewpoints from the university administrators, teachers, and students through methods like surveys, interviews, and focus groups.