Hong Kong is seeking to increase the use of 'assessment for learning' rather than rely on 'assessment of learning' through summative examinations. Nearly 300 teachers from 14 primary and secondary schools answered a Chinese translation of the Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment inventory and a new Practices of Assessment Inventory. Structural equation modelling showed that there was clear alignment between conceptions and practices. Further, there were significant differences in the conceptions of assessment held by Hong Kong teachers as compared to New Zealand and Queensland teachers. This sample of Hong Kong teachers strongly associated (r=.91) using assessment to improve teaching and learning with making students accountable through assessment, which, in turn, led to a strong use of examination preparation practices (β=.43). Hong Kong teachers believed learning outcomes were improved by using assessments to make students accountable and by preparing them for examinations. These results suggest that broader Chinese cultural norms concerning examinations are part of school culture and may provide barriers for the assessment reform agenda in Hong Kong and other Confucian societies.
[Copyright of Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319737]

The relationship between teaching styles and student ratings of teaching was examined at a Chinese university. 388 teachers (170 men, 218 women) were invited to fill out the 49-item teaching Styles Inventory (Grogorenko & Sternberg, 1993). The inventory measures seven teaching styles: legislative, judicial, liberal, global, executive, conservative, and local. Scores from students' evaluations of teaching of course for one semester were collected. Students' evaluation scores were significantly and negatively related to executive and conservative teaching styles of their teachers, while insignificant correlation was found between student ratings and any of the other five teaching styles. Only conservative teaching style contributed significantly to the prediction of student ratings. Sex and age were found to have moderating effects on the relationship between teaching style and student ratings. The role of teaching styles in student ratings was discussed.
[Reproduced with permission of author(s) and publisher from: Chen, G. H. & Watkins, D. Can student ratings of teaching be predicted by teaching styles? Psychological Reports, 106(2), 501-512. © Psychological Reports 2010 Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://ammonsscientific.com/]

Assessment is generally seen as one of the key challenges in the field of self-access learning (Gardner & Miller, 1999; Champagne et al., 2001; Lai, 2001; Kinoshita Thomson, 1996). Many researchers and practitioners point to difficulties with assessing language gains in an environment in which variables cannot comprehensively be controlled for. Furthermore, assessing the development of learning gains, such as the ability to plan and manage independent learning or to approach a learning task strategically (a key aim of self-access learning) relies on underdeveloped methodologies and assessment tools.
This article reports on a study of current approaches to assessment in self-access in 46 centres in 5 countries (Germany , Hong Kong , New Zealand, Spain and Switzerland). These centres were visited and extensive interviews were conducted with their managers. The interviews were based on a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of each centre. Data from the interviews were analysed to identify current assessment practice. It was found that more than half of all centres conducted no form of assessment at all. The remaining centres showed a wide range of assessment measures such as self-assessment, which was the most common type of assessment, collaborative assessment with an advisor, external examinations and tests, teacher assessment, advisor assessment, peer evaluation and assessment through a panel. There was little evidence of a consistent approach to assessment in the centres, and its application seemed haphazard. There was no evidence that the instruments were checked for validity or reliability.
[Copyright of TESL - EJ is the property of TESL - EJ .
Access via Directory of Open Access Journals: http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/]