Internationalisation of the curriculum (IoC) is on the agenda of many higher education (HE) institutions worldwide. Typically seen as associated with a top-down strategy, IoC often meets resistance from university teachers, many of whom struggle to understand its relevance to teaching practice. This phenomenographic study investigates university teachers' conceptions of IoC. Five conceptions ranging in sophistication have been identified. The least sophisticated focuses on making the curriculum content internationally relevant, whereas the most sophisticated centres around developing self-awareness, awareness of others, and a change in mindset in students. The latter is realised by embracing reflexivity and criticality and, more importantly, utilising societal and political issues as learning opportunities for identity development. Situated in the Hong Kong context, the findings not only suggest the need for teachers to shift their focus from curriculum content to value-based development but also for educators to reflect on their role in helping students to reconcile their identity in relation to their counterparts regionally and globally.
[Copyright of Higher Education is the property of Springer.]

This study explores critical incidents regarding differing cultures-of-use in telecollaboration against the backdrop of Hong Kong and German teacher education contexts. The rationale for the exchange was to model technology use and task design with the ultimate goal of internationalizing teacher education and supporting global citizenship. Participants in this project are 58 English majors in a graduate-level sociolinguistics course at a public research institution in Hong Kong and 15 EFL student teachers in a language teaching and new media elective course at a public education university in Germany. Using social media tools for interaction such as Facebook, Skype, WeChat, and WhatsApp, 11 telecollaborative teams engaged in three sequential tasks: (a) engaging in topical exchanges using Facebook, (b) writing a literature review in Google Docs, and (c) making recommendations on team websites using Wix. Research questions focus on critical incidents identified by participants during these tasks, particularly in relation to tool engagement. Data triangulation includes reflections, surveys, and online interactions. Findings indicate that the majority of Hong Kong teams cite low experience with certain tools, unfamiliarity with alternative tools (e.g., WeChat), and differences in tool access and use as constraints in achieving effective communication. Implications address sensitizing participants to their partners' tool socialization through implementing the critical incident technique.
[Copyright of Language Learning & Technology is the property of University of Hawaii. National Foreign Language Resource Center.]

The general university requirements (GUR) at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) is an integral part of the new 4-year undergraduate curriculum. To evaluate GUR, a longitudinal case study involving 42 cases from different faculties/schools was conducted, with several interviews conducted with the informants over time. The present article is to report the findings of the second year evaluation. Three major observations on students' views about the effectiveness of GUR study were generated from the study, including 1) broadened horizons; 2) increased awareness of the connection between GUR study and all-round development and 3) urge of linking GUR components with one's profession. The longitudinal case study findings suggest that students generally had fruitful learning experiences in GUR study. This study helps to paint a more complete picture of students' views toward GUR and their personal development.
[Copyright of International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health is the property of Nova Science Publishers, Inc.]

Through focus group interview, this study explored teachers' perceptions and experiences of the general university requirements (GUR) in the new four-year undergraduate degree program of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in Hong Kong. A total of 52 colleagues involved in teaching and coordination work participated in focus group interviews. Eight focus group sessions were formed to understand the views of teachers on the eight GUR curriculum components. Results showed that teachers generally had positive views of subject content as well as student learning and engagement. Teachers also demonstrated deeper understanding of teaching with active involvement. Teachers also had gained multidisciplinary working experience through teaching GUR subjects. Teachers perceived their subjects and related teaching as beneficial to students' all-round development, particularly in communication, critical thinking, confidence and self-esteem.
[Copyright of International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health is the property of Nova Science Publishers, Inc.]

This chapter comparatively analyzes the most recent national curriculum guidelines for early childhood education (ECE) in Norway, Finland, China, and Hong Kong. By exploring the aims and dominant concepts in the guidelines, we aspire to better understand how governments of different cultures utilize the dominant concepts, that is, play and learning to manage and facilitate ECE and children’s development. The major data sources are the national curriculum guidelines for ECE and major policies directing and/or influencing the formulation of the guidelines. Content analysis and comparative analysis methods are utilized to analyze the documents. Through analysis and comparison, this chapter aims to inspire policy makers, practitioners, and interested parties in the four cultures and internationally to understand and reflect on their own ECE so that ECE can be better approached in their own culture as well as in settings of diverse cultures.
[Copyright of International Perspectives on Education and Society is the property of JAI Press Ltd.]

The current New Senior Secondary curriculum was implemented in Hong Kong in 2009. This educational reform promotes a paradigm shift in learning and teaching strategies, with the ultimate goal to prepare secondary school students for meeting the changing needs of the workplace and for lifelong learning. This paper reports empirical findings by investigating the impact of such a paradigm shift in education on student learning through comparing the perceptions of different stakeholders (i.e., school heads, teachers and students). The data were collected from a self-reported questionnaire, involving 91 secondary schools, 1,439 school heads, Key Learning Areas coordinators/panels heads, Secondary 6 teachers, and 4614 Secondary 6 students. Key findings are: (1) seven dimensions of student learning were identified (in terms of generic skills, personal growth and well-being, values and attitudes) and these are regarded as the important paradigm shift in the secondary education curriculum; (2) school heads were more optimistic than Key Learning Areas coordinators/panel heads and frontline teachers about the performance of Secondary 6 students; and (3) Secondary 6 students had a more positive outlook than their teachers regarding world views, pluralistic views, communication skills, critical thinking and creativity. Implications and recommendations are discussed.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Education is the property of Routledge.]

校本課程開發(School-based curriculum)是當前中國大陸和香港地區課程改革的重點之一,也是世界基礎課程改革的發展趨勢。一個成功的校本課程開發,其首要條件應是教師具備校本課程開發的能力。而校本課程開發的改革,則正是教師開始成為校本課程開發的主體之一,將原本屬於國家的課程開發權力部分地下放給學校和教師,從而使得課程開發不再僅僅是學科專家和官方的專屬權利,讓教師也擁有了部分課程開發的自主權。這種以合作方式參與校本課程的開發,不僅賦予教師以自主權來決定校本課程內容及教學模式,還對教師本身的素質提出了嶄新的要求。學前教育作為基礎教育的一個組成部分,是學校教育和終身教育的初始階段。隨著新一輪基礎教育課程改革的推進與實施,我國的學前教育課程改革也在積極而深入展開。自2001年9月,教育部頒發了《幼兒園教育指導綱要(試行)》(以下簡稱“幼兒園綱要”),明確要求幼兒園教師(以下簡稱“幼師”)要從園本的條件出發,以平行的方式進行校本課程開發,並結合班本幼兒的實際,制定切實可行的校本課程並靈活地執行。這在一方面為中國幼兒園校本課程開發確立了開放性的理念;另一方面,也充分肯定了幼師在幼兒園開發校本課程的作用和地位。踏進二十一世紀,香港進行了大規模的教育制度和課程改革,明確其對香港中學、小學及幼兒園校本課程開發的要求。除此之外,自2017年起香港地區政府還為幼兒園推出免費優質幼兒園教育政策,政策通告指出,幼兒園需配合官方《幼兒園教育課程指引》(2017)的要求,發展以“兒童為本”為核心概念的校本課程,並明確提出幼師必須參與到校本課程開發中來。這意味著賦予幼兒園和幼師自主開發校本課程的權利和職能。但這一政策同時也對幼師的專業素養提出了更高的要求,幼師要由以往慣性被動、只執行規定課程教育而變為課程開發的主動者,需積極參與到幼兒園的課程開發中去,並成為課程開發者、設計者、反思實踐者甚至研究者。而校本課程的開發涉及深厚的課程理論和專業化技能,這是當下幼師們所面臨的現實問題,也是一個新的挑戰。縱觀國內外學界相關研究,發現幼兒園與幼師校本課程的開發過程中均存在很多問題,幼師開發校本課程亦存在很多困難與疑惑,而幼師對校本課程開發能力的缺乏正是校本課程開發面臨主要困難。幼師在開發校本課程的實踐中會遇到甚麼問題?幼師需要具備甚麼的能力?哪些策略有助提升幼師校本課程開發能力?這都是亟待研究的關鍵。當下,不僅有關幼師校本課程開發能力的研究極為缺乏,有關幼師校本課程開發能力提升的策略就更為稀少。加上香港幼兒教育推行校本課程發展至今,對香港幼師開發校本課程能力的研究相對較少,而以提升幼師開發校本課程能力的策略研究也屬極為罕見。因此,本論文對香港幼師開發校本課程的現況、提升幼師校本課程開發能力的探討,就顯得尤為重要。論文總結了香港幼師開發校本課程與提升幼師校本課程開發能力的經驗,相信在香港幼兒園校本課程、香港幼師在校本課程及到校培訓等未來發展方向上將有一定幫助。除此之外,論文中所提倡的推動幼兒園校本課程發展、提升幼師開發校本課程的能力,甚至鼓勵及支持幼師進行校本課程開發,分析幼師課程開發的能力等,都是當前幼師專業發展的必然要求。因此,從理論意義上來說,本研究有助於提高業界對於幼兒園校本課程開發的意義、幼師開發校本課程的過程和提升幼師校本課程開發的能力等問題的理解和認識。另外,也為香政府及幼師培訓機構在設計幼師開發校本課程的培訓課程時,提供了一些參考。論文基於校本課程開發能促進幼師專業發展的理論依據,試圖通過理論闡述與實證研究,從香港幼兒教育的視角,從兩大方面進行重點闡述:一,運用問卷及訪談的方式,對香港130多所不同類型幼兒園的幼師開發校本課程能力、認知、態度及困難進行了調查和研究,以了解香港幼師開發校本課程的現況及困難;二,筆者以行動研究的方式,針對幼師在開發校本課程方面的困難,設計出了適合幼師需要的策略,即以“到校專業支持服務”的校本教師培訓模式進行介入,介入香港一所幼兒園,以課程專家的身份作指導,鼓勵幼師從過去被動的角色轉變成為主動的課程設計者及教研者,能切實地解決校本課程所出現的問題。在此過程中,讓幼師邊做邊學,以激發幼師的創造性和主動性,不斷總結和反思校本課程中所存在的問題,並找出解決方法,以此提升幼師開發校本課程的能力,解決過去幼師在校本課程中不知“如何做”及“沒有能力做”的困難。同時,筆者還闡述了“到校專業支持服務”(On-site professional support services)對提升幼師在開發校本課程的能力、認知、態度,以及對幼兒園開發“兒童為本”的校本課程等方面的效能,以形成本文的結果及結論。最後,筆者肯定了本文以行動研究為基礎的“到校專業支持服務”的校本培訓模式,在提升幼師開發校本課程的能力、認知、態度等方面均具有一定的效果。筆者認為

香港推行校本課程剪裁計劃，目的是將其課程作適當的剪裁，以切合學業成績稍遜學生的需要。1994年9月，共十間中學參加試驗計劃，結果顯示計劃確能使學業成績稍遜學生獲益。試驗計劃成功協助錄取大量成績稍遜的學生，是在於採取了三方面的策略：1.調整課程內容，重新鞏固學生學習基礎；2.改善教材、教法，切合學生的需要；3.重視提高學生的學習動機。本文透過課程剪裁計劃，反思香港教育及課程改革的規模是否過大，以致未能集中處理學與教的問題。 Copyright © 2008 華東師範大學.

學校本位課程發展可說是近年課程改革範圍內一個重要議題。本文嘗試整理和探討有關學校本位課程發展的定義，以及探討不同的學校本位課程發展取向和模式。首先，文章探討課程發展、課程改進以至校本課程發展的意涵，此外，有關學校聚焦、學校為中心到學校為本課程發展的定義亦作探討。其次，文章初步探討中國內地、台灣和香港的校本課程發展脈絡。本文從技術－科學和非技術取向探討不同的校本課程發展取向與模式，尤其對史克北模式評析，以及非技術取向下的人文教育模式、協商課程模式、創作周期模式等。School-based curriculum development is an important agenda in the field of curriculum reform in recent years. This article attempts to consolidate and discuss various definitions related to school-based curriculum development as well as to discuss their different approaches and models. First, the article discusses the meaning of curriculum development, curriculum improvement and school-based curriculum development. Secondly, the definitions related to school-focused, school-centred as well as school-based curriculum development are explored. Moreover, the article initially discusses the contexts of school-based curriculum development in the Chinese Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The article also discusses different approaches and models of school-based curriculum development from both technical-scientific and non-technical perspectives, especially with regard to the critique of Skilbeck's model and elaboration of humanistic education model, negotiation curriculum model and authoring cycle model. Copyright © 2003 中華民國課程與教學學會.

過去十多年，海內外學者曾深入探討「課程」和「教學」這兩個概念。整體而言，有提倡教學包含課程，有認為課程包含教學，有主張課程與教學並列，亦有較積極的學者建議把課程和教學整合。然而，學者在探討時主要是從概念出發，分析兩者的關係。本文目的是從學者的文章，探討他們對「課程」與「教學」的理解，並檢視兩者的差異。本文分三部分，首先概述學者對這兩概念的看法，接着從學者的文章判斷他們理解這兩個概念的差別，最後提出結論。本文發現，「課程」與「教學」各有關注點。筆者認為課程探討的範圍較教學的廣泛。「教學」重在探討學習者和教師，集中在課室層面；「課程」重在探討教育內涵的形塑問題，涉及不同層面，較集中在制度層面、地區層面、學校層面。During the past ten years, scholars have inquired into the concepts of “curriculum” and “teaching” with great efforts. In general, some scholars advocate teaching embodying curriculum, some regard curriculum embracing teaching, and some suggest that they are parallel concepts with close relationship. A few scholars proactively integrate “curriculum” and “teaching,” aiming to provide a better understanding on their relationships. However, the discussions of these scholars are only conceptual ones without research elements. This article aims to inquire scholars’ understanding of the two concepts through their actual usage and to distinguish the differences between the concepts. The article consists of three parts. First, it summarizes the scholastic views on these two concepts. Then, it identifies the differences between these concepts from their application by scholars. Finally, concluding comments will be made. This article finds that scholars have different concerns when using “curriculum” and “teaching.” The authors regard the inquiry of curriculum as having a broader scope than the inquiry of teaching. Whereas “teaching” focuses on the inquiry of learners and teachers at the classroom level, “curriculum” focuses on the inquiry of shaping education content at various levels like the system level, the regional level, and the school level. Copyright © 2010 香港中文大學 CUHK .