The Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) in hugely expanded universities in Britain and Hong Kong attempt mammoth scale ratings of "quality of research." If peer review on that scale is feasible for "quality of research," is it less so for "quality of teaching"? The lessons of the Hong Kong Teaching and Learning Quality Process Reviews (TLQPRs), of recent studies on the influence of grade expectation and workload on student ratings, of attempts to employ agency theory both to improve teaching quality and raise student ratings, and of institutional attempts to refine the peer review process, all suggest that we can "put teaching on the same footing as research" and include professional regard for teaching content and objectives, as well as student ratings of effectiveness and personality appeal, in the process.
[Copyright of Education Policy Analysis Archives is the property of College of Education, Arizona State University.
Access via Directory of Open Access Journals: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/]

Mentoring as a time-honored and effective mode of training and teaching is briefly reviewed, highlighting the valuing of the mentoring relationship in educating gifted and talented youths in Chinese history. The current development of mentorship programs for gifted students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong is explained with examples from the search for potential mentors within the university community, and the development and operation of the mentorship program of Chinese creative writings for Hong Kong students. Future directions in the development of mentorship programs for gifted students using reformation technology and peer mentors in double mentoring are discussed, and a model of three levels of mentoring encompassing telementoring, double mentoring, and one-to-one mentoring is suggested.
[Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554072]

The internationalisation of higher education in countries such as Australia and the UK has resulted in increased numbers of South-East Asia students in higher education classrooms. While considerable attention has been given to exploring the implications of internationalisation on students in 'Western' university contexts, there is a paucity of research concerning the effect on teachers of higher education and, in particular, those employed in to teach in countries culturally foreign to their own. This paper aims to initiate such discussion through an exploration of the experiences of two teaching academics working in Hong Kong. Discussion will focus on issues of language and communication, and social and cultural distance, and the effect of hierarchy and related teaching strategies developed to meet the inter-cultural learning needs of themselves and their students. It is argued that, the development of inter-cultural understandings must permeate the curricula, and be a shared goal and responsibility of both teachers and students.
[Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135625100114975]

This paper focuses on peer feedback in relation to assessment processes. It examines the rationale for peer feedback, emphasizing its potential for enhanced student learning. We draw on relevant literature to argue that the dominance of peer assessment processes using grades can undermine the potential of peer feedback for improving student learning. The paper throws further light on the issue by drawing on a large-scale questionnaire survey of tertiary students (1740) and academics (460) in Hong Kong, supplemented by interview data. The findings indicate that a significant number of academics and students resist peer assessment using grades and that the majority report that students never or rarely grade each other in assessment activities. This paper explores why there is resistance, in particular, by academics to peer assessment and argues the case for a peer feedback process as an end in itself or as a precursor to peer assessment insolving the awarding of marks, It also recommends some strategies for promoting peer feedback, through engaging students with criteria and for embedding peer involvement within normal course processes.
[Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582]

During 2001-2002 the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong undertook a large-scale evaluation of the school-university partnership scheme. As part of this study, all mentors were asked how, if at all, the mentoring process had enhanced their own professional development. An open-response questionnaire was administered with a selection of follow-up interviews. About 70% of the mentors claimed that they had benefited professionally from mentoring. Here we analyse mentors' responses and from them propose four constructs that we suggest lead to professional development, namely: learning through self-reflection, learning from student teachers, learning through mutual collaboration, and learning from university tutors. Of these, the first appears to be the most significant.
[Copyright of Journal of Education for Teaching is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470500043532]