This study examined the association between students' approaches to learning and stages of reflective thinking. The revised version of the Study Process Questionnaire was used to measure deep and surface approaches to learning and the Reflection Questionnaire was used to distinguish four stages of reflective and nonreflective thinking. Both questionnaires were completed by 402 undergraduates from all years of study from a health science faculty in a university in Hong Kong. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test possible associations. The results showed that only the habitual action scale correlated significantly to surface approach to learning. Understanding, reflection and critical reflection correlated with deep approach but had no correlation to surface approach. Understanding, reflection and critical reflection correspond to the use of a deep approach with increasing levels of meaningful personal assimilation. These findings provide evidence of close association between approaches to learning and stages of reflection upon practice. The results also provide evidence for the convergent validity of both questionnaires.
[Copyright of Educational Psychology is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014434022000022933]

University education has been thrust into the limelight by policymakers in Hong Kong and Singapore in recent years. Reforming university education thus has become a norm for both city-states. This article reviews and compares some recent developments in the university reforms in both city-states. It argues university education, as a public policy area, is not immune from the profound influence of such concepts as accountability, performativity, quality assurance and market relevance, which prevail in a wider policy context of public sector reforms and governance changes. Hong Kong and Singapore's university reforms are similarly extensive, ranging from the admission mechanisms through to the governance and funding systems. This article has four main sections. The first sketches a paradigm shift in the policymaking process and the changing state-university relationships in the age of globalization. The second reviews and compares some recent developments of the university reforms in both city-states. The third turns to assess the impacts of the reforms on university stakeholders. The final section is the conclusion.
[Copyright of Higher Education Research & Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000083625]