There has been a worldwide interdisciplinary curriculum development. By examining several official interdisciplinary curriculum in Hong Kong, this paper argues that curriculum integration which incorporates learning about globalization and global citizenship has gradually developed since the late 1990s. By using cross-sectional focus group interviews with experienced teachers and a sample of students, the author identified benefits such as enhancing students' interdisciplinary knowledge and applying critical thinking. But limitations can be found in having a weak disciplinary knowledge and difficult to develop transferrable skills, which necessitates teacher training. This paper also discusses the recent Liberal Studies controversy and youth protests. Copyright © 2020 James Nicholas Publishers.

In recent years, both Singapore and Hong Kong have been ranked top in international education rankings. They are widely admired as high-performing education systems (HPES) and, not surprisingly, among the best education systems in the world. The success stories of Singapore and Hong Kong education have aroused widespread attention internationally among different stakeholders, such as policymakers, researchers and practitioners, to investigate if it is possible for their policies and practices to be learned and borrowed by other countries. In this article, we stress the importance of context in understanding policy phenomena and possibilities for policy transfer. The Singapore and Hong Kong education systems are facing critical issues such as the economization of education, educational disparities and the paradigm shift from meritocracy to parentocracy. How well they deal with these policy issues will determine if their present international standing continues into the future. This article provides a critical review of their education policies to explore how these policies can be refined and adjusted in order to cope with the challenges facing both education systems.
[Copyright of Infancia Y Aprendizaje is the property of Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1434043]

國際化是現時高等教育界的一個重要議程和發展方向，也是主流評級機構用以評核大學的其中一個因素。各界對國際化的定義不盡相同。在香港，有意見指實施國際化目的就是為了強化「香港的特徵」，從而增加國際學生與本地學生相互文化發展機會。境外學習活動既可以提升學生多方面的技能，亦能讓他們獲得個人全面發展及擴闊全球視野。透過瞭解國際化的定義，以及一所本地大學在其國際化進程中為學生提供境外學習的經驗，我們可對香港高校學生怎樣在國際化中獲益有更深瞭解。 Copyright © 2017 香港教師中心.

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..]

Research on transnational Higher Education governance has provided a thesis explaining how East Asian states have successfully selectively blended elements of globalisation in Higher Education with their pre-existing regulatory regimes. However, this paper argues that the thesis overlooks the significance of local politics in understanding the formulation of Higher Education policy, thus insufficiently acknowledging the indeterminacy that arises in the globalisation process. To address this argument, this paper examines the transnational Higher Education development in Singapore and Hong Kong and explains how political resistance and corresponding policy changes that emerged in these two societies help reconceptualise transnational Higher Education governance.
[Copyright of Higher Education Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd..]

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the worldwide discussion of conceptualization, multiple functions and management of national education in an era of globalisation by proposing a new comprehensive framework for research, policy analysis and practical implementation. Design/methodology/approach Based on a review of the diversity in definitions of national education, the controversies in policy and implementation of national education are discussed. The different interpretations of national education stem from different assumptions and perspectives. Each of them seems too confining in globalisation. To overcome the controversies, this paper calls for a re-conceptualisation of national education from a broader perspective. Findings The conceptualisation of broad-based national education is premised on two fundamental principles. First, national education which is meant for development is a process by which humankind moves forward at multiple levels including the personal, local, national and global levels. Second, national education nowadays must be understood against a globalised context, in which there are multiple, complex and dynamic developments at play including technological, economic, social, political, cultural and learning developments of not only individuals and local communities within the nation but also the global world beyond the nation. In brief, broad-based education serves multiple functions at multiple levels. With national identity understood in a broader perspective, the multiplicity and complexity of national education may be better addressed. Identifying with one's own nation is a dynamic and complicated process in which interaction and integration between the different levels and different functions of civic identities are involved. The approaches to management, implementation and pedagogy of broad-based national education are also discussed. Research limitations/implications The new framework of conceptualisation and the comparison

The spread of quality assurance (QA) regimes in higher education has been an explosive phenomenon over the last 25 years. By one estimate, for example, half of all the countries in the world have adopted QA systems or QA regulatory agencies to oversee their higher education sector. Typically, this phenomenon is explained as a process of policy diffusion, the advent of marketization, the spread of neoliberalism, massification and, concomitantly, the emergence of a 'global market' for higher education, prompting governments to respond by validating standards, quality, and introducing certification and compliance regimes. In this paper I question the utility of these explanatory frameworks, specifically looking at the case of Hong Kong in order to explore the role coercive institutional isomorphism plays in policy adoption and the implications of this for regulatory performativity.
[Copyright © Elsevier BV].