The paper discusses the current school curriculum of Hong Kong with reference to the education development in our society, to generate a thesis about the direction of education. The methodology includes: (a) documentary analysis of curriculum reform documents, key education policy documents and policy documents. (b) Interview with 5 experienced teachers on the teaching job and student learning. Content analysis was performed based on triangulating the data. Some findings are gathered: (a) the “Learning to Learn” (CDI, 2000) curriculum was only too passively reactive to the current globalization tide, in which competition, productivity, and efficiency (OECD, 1998; Wallerstein, 1979; Zajda, 1998) are the values. It identified a standard “global outlook” (CDI, 2001) our future young generation should model to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. (b) the curriculum connected harmoniously with the traditions of Hong Kong education, which was commented as “predominantly a highly utilitarian means to economic and vocational ends” in a external review (Llewellyn, 1982). When the curriculum reform was in full swing, the auditing systems were in place to transform school into an economy activity. This paper reexamines education and how we can respond to lead our future towards the goal of education, but not globalization.

近數十年來，世界各地提出需要改革課程與教學範式，認為必須裝備學生的高階思維能力。在香港，教育當局也有這樣的主張。高階思維，簡稱「高思」，在本地及國際文獻中，是一個豐富的概念。學者們為這個概念提出了很多不同的演繹，至今仍未有共識；不少人期望對此理念能更清楚地理解。本文借助文獻分析方法，探討這富挑戰性的議題，先闡明「高思」與教學範式轉變的關係，進而討論「高思」相關的概念及理論，綜合成為四類高階思維的意涵，冀望能為教育實務及日後的相關研究提供有用的參考。
[© The Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre 2012.]

在香港的小學，領導學校改革，可以說是小學課程統籌主任的一項重要職務。本文嘗試解構作為學校課程領導者，如何透過行動研究，鼓勵教師在自己的工作地方進行教學研究，把行動研究的精神貫徹到日常的教學工作中，以達致教育改革的最終目標。
[Copyright © 2010 by Academic & Professional Book Centre.]

香港於回歸後，特區政府在課程方面推行多項改革措施，學者亦積極探討該些課程政策。近年，以軟、硬政策概念來分析這些新課程政策的性質，也引起一些關注。研究者嘗試從學校政策制訂者的角度，了解學校如何理解新課程，如何制訂應對措施。研究在三所小學進行。研究發現，學校政策制訂者對新課程的「軟」、「硬」性質有不同的理解；而且，他們為學校決定課程方向時，實取決於其對這些理解。

Conceptions of 'soft' and 'hard' policy are now commonly discussed in the policy literature concerned with multi-level systems of governance (Abbott et al., 2000; Torenvlied et al., 2004; Cini, 2001; Hertin et al., 2003; Koulaimah-Gabriel et al., 1997). Such conceptions have been useful ways of delineating different incentives, pressures and motivations for policy implementation. On the one hand implementation can be directed by legislation and regulatory monitoring with the possibility of sanctions for non-compliance ('hard' policy) or it can come in the form of recommendations, education campaigns and strong advocacy ('soft' policy). The application of these conceptions to education policy making is relatively new (Fok, Kennedy and Chan, 2005; Chan, Kennedy and Fok, 2005). It is clear from this work that the concepts of 'hard' and 'soft' policy are useful in understanding aspects of education policy implementation by focusing on the nature of policy and its potential to influence subsequent implementation outcomes. It is equally clear that some adaptation needs to be made to the original meanings underlying these constructs if the full potential of the ideas are to be exploited. The purpose of this paper is to reinterpret the meanings of 'hard' and 'soft' policy with reference to particular case studies of curriculum reform and in particular to focus on the Hong Kong context that provides a unique set of influences governing both curriculum policy and its implementation.