Concurrent Presentations I2016-06-27T16:24:36+08:00

Measuring General Education Learning in CUHK: What Has Been Done vs What Should Be Done
Mei Yee Leung, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

In The Chinese University of Hong Kong, the goals and learning outcomes of general education have been clarified and articulated in 2009 after a thorough program review. The assessment of the program has since then taken an outcome-based approach. However, if it is relatively easy and manageable to implement quantitative-subjective measurements of GE learning outcomes, qualitative-subjective measurement in the form of student focus groups and individual interviews requires more efforts and resources. Recently, an attempt to qualitative-objective measurement is underway as our team of GE teachers engages in the Narrative-Qualitative-Assessment project initiated by the Association of Core Texts and Courses. We are now trying to consolidate the findings of these different measurements before we will embark on a qualitative-objective measurement on student learning in general education.


Quality, Quantity, and (Im)Measurability: the Common Core@HKU
Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

In “Quality, Quantity, and (Im)Measurability: the Common Core@HKU,” we will briefly explore the emergence and use of numbers as a measure of the quality of learning. After a ridiculously abbreviated history of western philosophy, we will then consider the use of performance metrics—already signaled by Jean-Francois Lyotard in his classic on education, The Postmodern Condition (1979)—the emergence of neoliberal privatization and audit culture as forms of fantasies of quantification as a means of surveillance and control, and the relation between judgement, quantity, and quality. How, in the Common Core at the University of Hong Kong—and other universities around the world—are numbers made use of for assessment purposes? How do we actually recognize real student learning and translate that into numbers? And what about that little prefix, “im-,” and the remainder, the excess, the outside?

Quality, Quantity, and (Im)measurability 2016 Gray Kochhar-Lindgren


Challenges of Faculty Development at Universities in SE Asia
Gail Dickinson

In this session we will discuss the issue and challenges of faculty development from a SE East Asian context.  Using a case study approach I will highlight how faculty respond to learning about assessment.  Most faculty members have not thought about formative assessment or different types of summative assessments.  Too often the assessment is a multiple choice test (that is poorly constructed) and not a learning experience.  Culturally there can be a general attitude that if you pay tuition, you’ve already paid for your A.  One issue for both faculty and students is academic integrity e.g. whether or not faculty should take bribes for grades and what does student academic integrity mean in a SE Asian culture where IP is still being defined and copy and paste is seem as a tribute to the author and free use of information.


Institutional Assessment for Whole Person Education
Glenn Shive, United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, Hong Kong

The United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia has taken Whole Person Education (WPE) as the integrating theme of its grants programs in support of its network of colleges and universities in Asia.  Part I of the presentation gives brief background to the concept for WPE and the theories of human development that have given rise to the concern for WPE in higher education.  Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is featured, but many other concepts have converged into the imperative for WPE.  The massification of higher education in North America, and more recently in Asia, has set an institutional context for concern for a holistic approach to teaching and learning. Part II explores recent studies about WPE and the need for 21st century skills among university graduates in five aspects of the academy: priorities for admissions; general education; science education; spiritual development of university students; and the transition from university to the workplace.  These studies make recommendations on how universities can anchor WPE in the various domains of university life. Part III takes up the challenge to develop measures and assessment regimes to reflect progress in whole person development among emerging adults in academic contexts.   Here is where measuring the un-measurable comes in. We feature the Whole Person Development Inventory (WPDI), designed and used by the Hong Kong Baptist University.  This survey could be adapted and validated for other Asian cultures and used by colleges as part of an institution-wide assessment process focusing on strengths and weakness in WPE.  An assessment tool for WPE should arise from a dialogical process within the institution, and form a regular part of strategic planning for institutions that wish to make WPE a priority and a distinct character of their education philosophy and practice.  This would include defining desirable graduate attributes, measuring progress among students toward those desired outcomes, and explicitly aligning elements of the academic and co-curricular program to those attributes.