Page 91 - FSTE A5 Handbook

industrial, NGO and government sectors were invited to manage, operate and monitor the
system. As UGC funded institutions already have their quality assurance mechanisms, these
new systems would only take care of the non-UGC institutions.

On the one hand, this approach helps to uphold the principle of “fit for purpose” for
development of higher education in Hong Kong; on the other, it continues to demonstrate the
government’s policy on the self-financed sector as a positive non-interventional role. Although
it may be too early to judge whether this approach would succeed as intended, continuous
and formative evaluation like the research reported in this book is critical. We cannot, after
all, afford to have poor quality education and we all depend on the best educational outcomes
for our students.

References

Adagale, A. S. (2015). Curriculum development in higher education. International Journal of
Applied Research, 1 (11), 602-605.
Jaffee, D. (2011). The General Education Initiative in Hong Kong: Organized Contradictions and
Emerging Tensions. Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9487-y
Logan, J. & Curry, J. (2015). A liberal arts education: Global trends and challenges. Christian
Higher Education, 14(1/2), 66-79.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London:
Heineman.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

University Grants Committee. (2005). UGC Statement on New Academic Structure [Press
release]. Retrieved from http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200505/18/05180136.
htm
Xing, J., Ng, P. & Cheng, C. (eds.). (2013). General Education and the Development of Global
Citizenship in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China: Not Merely Icing on the Cake.
London: Routledge.

78