The academic year 2012/13 marked a major milestone in the history of Hong Kong higher education as it witnessed the admission of two markedly different cohorts of Cantonese-speaking freshmen to the city's English-medium universities: those embarking for the last time upon the traditional 3-year programme modelled on the British system of initial disciplinary specialisation and those commencing the new 4-year programme featuring an American-influenced first year of general education. This article presents the findings of a study which sought to compare the perceptions and experiences of the two cohorts on the challenging process of adjusting to the demands of university study. It was hypothesised that students in the 3-year cohort (3YC) would experience fewer difficulties adjusting to university learning and teaching than the 4-year cohort (4YC) as it was assumed that their A-level programme (years 12–13) placed greater emphasis on university-related skills, practices and habits of mind than the new senior-secondary curriculum (years 10–12). This hypothesis was tested by means of a survey completed by 1480 students at Hong Kong Polytechnic University towards the end of the academic year. The results largely support this hypothesis, although the evidence suggests that both cohorts had adjusted moderately well to university study by the end of the year. The results indicate that the principal difference between the two cohorts and the key to the 3YC's smoother transition was their greater confidence and competence in English, which presumably stemmed from their extra year at school and the greater depth of the traditional sixth-form curriculum.
[Copyright of Journal of Further & Higher Education is the property of Routledge.]

One way that universities assess teaching effectiveness is by eliciting student feedback. However, what standards do students themselves use to judge whether a lecturer is a 'good' teacher? As part of a study carried out at a Hong Kong university, students were interviewed about their first-year learning experience and asked what they felt constituted 'good' and 'bad' teaching. Unlike when asked to complete teacher effectiveness surveys, no criteria or characteristics were given. Responses focused primarily on teaching skills that supported student learning and encouraged critical thinking, particularly the teacher's ability to give clear explanations supported by relevant, practical examples.
[Copyright of Journal of Further & Higher Education is the property of Routledge.]

Research conducted in the late twentieth century pointed to a gulf in Hong Kong's universities between institutional medium-of-instruction policy, which stipulated the use of English, and lecturers' classroom practices, which often involved the use of Cantonese to present and explain the content of English-language textbooks and teaching materials. This article examines the findings of a study which sought to determine whether the policy-practice divide had widened or narrowed in the past two decades under the pressure of two potentially competing forces: globalisation and decolonisation. The evidence suggests that the policy-practice disjunction may have narrowed significantly in recent years, with most of the participants' teachers evidently making a determined effort to instruct and interact with their students in English in lectures and seminars.
[Copyright of World Englishes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd..]

This article presents an overview of language policy in Hong Kong education during the colonial and post-colonial periods. The article is divided into three main sections. The first section outlines the sociolinguistic background of Hong Kong, including the demographic trends that have been crucial in determining the course of educational development in the city in the past 170 years. The second section offers an overview of language policies and practices during the colonial era (1842-1997). This section is divided into the two distinct phases which characterised education under the British; namely, (1) the period between the 1840s and the 1960s, during which English-medium secondary education was the preserve of the elite in society, and (2) the years between the 1970s and 1997, during which the majority of students in each age cohort attended schools in which English was the official medium of instruction. The third section examines developments in language policy since the handover, focusing on the promotion and subsequent fine-tuning of a controversial policy to promote Chinese-medium instruction at secondary level.
[Copyright Liverpool University Press 2017]