This paper examines the effects of course characteristics on student ratings of university teaching. The multivariate effects of various course characteristics on student ratings of university teachers were examined by a 54322 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with academic discipline, class size, level of course, type of course, and mode of study as independent variables and a set of six composite student ratings as the dependent variable. Data were obtained from a university in Hong Kong and consisted of 4996 course average ratings collected from 25 departments over two academic years. Significant differences were found in course average student ratings across academic disciplines, class size groups, course levels, types of course, and modes of study. The effect sizes of the largest differences between sub-groups within each of the factors were also estimated. Academic discipline differences and class size were found to have the largest effect on student ratings, with effect sizes of 0.43-0.86 and 0.55-1.01 respectively. Implications of the findings are discussed.
[Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240207]

Gifted education in Hong Kong reflects the Chinese tradition of valuing and nurturing special abilities in children. Thus, identifying and selecting gifted and talented students into programs are central. Currently, procedures in Hong Kong generally emphasize the use of standardized instruments for identifying the intellectually gifted (using the Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices), the academically gifted (using the Hong Kong Attainment Tests), and the creatively gifted (using the Chinese versions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking or the Wallach-Kogan Tests). Advocating the use of multiple criteria, educators in Hong Kong also employ informal measures such as nominations and rating scales. The complexity of the identification process was illustrated with the Chinese University Summer Gifted Program procedures of nomination, screening, and selection based on multiple measures and the ultimate criteria of matching individual specific needs with program services available. The issues regarding students being labeled as gifted or nongifted as a result of identification, the all-or-none misconception of giftedness, and the need to design and evaluate multiple measures and identification procedures are discussed.
[Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02783190009554008 ]

Globalisation and the evolution of the knowledge-based economy have caused dramatic changes in the character and functions of higher education in most countries around the world. However, the impacts of globalisation on universities are not uniform even though similar business-like practices have been adopted to cope with competition in the global marketplace. The pressure for restructuring and reforming higher education is mainly derived from growing expectations and demands of different stakeholders in society. In the last decade, government bureaucracy, public service institutions and higher education institutions and universities have been significantly affected by the tidal wave of the public sector reform around the world. Apart from improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, universities are confronted with a situation in which the principles of financial accountability and responsiveness to stakeholders prevail amidst the massification stage under the condition of global economic retrenchment. In response to such pressing demands for change, policies and strategies of decentralisation, privatisation and marketisation are becoming increasingly popular measures in university governance. Reform strategies and measures like quality assurance, performance evaluation, financial audit, corporate management and market competition are adopted to reform and improve the performance of the higher education sector. This article examines the most recent higher education reforms and restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China, with particular reference to the issues related to globalisation of decentralisation and marketisation in higher education.
[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/10.1080/0729436032000083580]

Hong Kong has undergone a series of educational reforms since the mid 1990s in response to the tidal wave of globalisation. This article tries to examine the recent education reforms in Hong Kong's higher education within the global context, by putting into perspective a discussion of its policy implications of marketisation, privatisation and corporatisation, through the examination of three important dimensions of education governance, namely: regulation, provision and financing. It finally concludes that the higher education governance in Hong Kong is transforming itself with a new state–education relationship under the impact of globalisation.
[Copyright of Globalisation, Societies & Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720601133504]

The number of distance education providers and learning options has increased rapidly in recent years with the emerging flexible learning technologies. The main challenge facing Australian and other universities aiming to deliver distance education programs nationally or internationally is to find economical ways to encourage and enable effective learning at a distance and at the student's own pace. The authors state that this challenge cannot be met by computer technology alone, but rather by integrating this technology within flexible learning approaches based on the universality of learning processes and teaching and learning approaches that encourage deep learning. The article focuses on the question of quality in distance education and how quality relates to student learning and flexible learning technologies used for this purpose. A particular student-centred model for flexible learning that is based on this paradigm of quality is presented. The implementation of this model is discussed in greater detail using the experiences of the RMIT Mechanical Engineering distance education program offered in Singapore and Hong Kong.
[Copyright of European Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Taylor & Francis. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0304379032000129322]