International Journal of Chinese Education

In this article we introduce the five papers published in this issue of the International Journal of Chinese Education (IJCE). We begin by discussing complexities shaping the analysis of education, then turn to each paper’s nature and contributions. The article concludes by introducing revised IJCE editorial arrangements.

Globally, higher education is expanding at an unprecedented pace. But two competing forces seem to be at work. The first is globalization: higher education systems are globalizing, especially through international research networks and global rankings which fuel competition on a global scale. Internationally comparable qualification frameworks, credit transfer, internationalization policies and quality assurance and accreditation arrangements work towards globally exchangeable qualifications. But the second force, driving institutions to deliver skills which are relevant for the national and regional economies, works against convergence. The skills equivalents of national qualifications remain very different across countries. The skills agendas, driven by countries’ position in global value chains, drive unequal outcomes. The consequence is that the global higher education system will remain characterized by huge inequalities, which are perceived as quality differences. Higher education policies need to find a balance between integration in the global higher education order and serving the domestic skills needs.

Higher Education Evaluation Systems supply information for diverse stakeholders. A “one size fits all” approach in university rankings is not enough. Looking to the future, evaluation may need to take into account criteria such as links with employers, lifelong education, implications of digitization, and interdisciplinary and interinstitutional collaboration across borders. The extensive possibilities of today’s research data based analyses are analysed, against the background of a whole industry devoted to this. Shortcomings, challenges and unintended consequences of the current approach are discussed. Impact analyses are seen as one of the ways forward, taking into account contributions to societies and their transformations. Diversity, “glocal” mindset and international collaboration are suggested as additional criteria for the competitive rankings of the future.

This paper reviews a set of considerations for evaluating academic units in complex universities and higher education systems. Methods of evaluation should match evaluative goals. Assessment should be sensitive to context and recognize the realities of contemporary higher education. Because a one-size-fits-all evaluative regime may be inappropriate, a capabilities-based approach is advanced. The capabilities-based approach focuses on meeting an overall goal of designing higher education systems that meet social demands.

As higher education attainment has become increasingly essential for both individual socioeconomic outcomes and the economic competitiveness of nation-states, and as the cost of financing the higher education enterprise continues to rise, university quality has become an urgent concern for students, families, and policy makers around the globe. The widespread interest in assessing university quality manifests itself in the rise of global rankings (Hazelkorn, 2015) and the increasing use of so-called performance indicators by government agencies. This paper focuses on the latter phenomenon. The first part of the paper examines the benefits and limitations of higher education performance indicators as conventionally implemented, and the second part advances a set of suggestions to address these shortcomings by adapting performance systems to represent and incentivize evidence-informed improvement efforts.

Recent years have witnessed an increase in research focused on studying on perspectives of Chinese mathematics instructions. The sustained interest is partly due to the outstanding performances of Chinese students in international studies such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Mullis, et al., 2012) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010); and partly due to the shared interest in comparative studies of instructional practice across different cultural systems. What have we learned about in mathematics classrooms from international studies? Findings of international studies suggest that how the teacher used the tasks so that the cognitive demand of the learning tasks could be sustained is very important. Despite the good performances of Hong Kong students in international studies, there is a gap between traditional classroom practice and the long established goals for promoting generic capacity in mathematics learning; most of the traditional learning tasks in Hong Kong classrooms are apparently routine and serving a demonstrative purpose as a result of the highly competitive systems. Based on triangulation of the findings of the analysis of the mathematics lessons at different levels, the study shown some robust features in the traditional mathematics teaching practice in Hong Kong classrooms in contrast to some innovative scenarios in a special mathematics lesson. Finally, the author re-examines the robust features in the context of curriculum reforms and the cultural context of Confucian tradition.