This paper focuses on reconfiguring assessment processes so that they support a learning function, in addition to the more traditional measurement function. In the first half of the paper we discuss a framework for 'learning‐oriented assessment' derived from a project carried out in Hong Kong. We conceptualize learning‐oriented assessment as containing three key components: assessment tasks as learning tasks; student involvement in assessment; and explicitly forward‐looking feedback. The second half of the paper presents an action research case in which the first author implemented some of the principles of learning‐oriented assessment within a module in a teacher education context. The module, focusing on multimedia and web authoring, was taught through blended learning with an emphasis on peer learning and project‐based learning. A particular feature was the interplay between students' learning experiences and the module assessments.
[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/10.1080/09695940600703944]

By employing qualitative and quantitative methods, the author focuses on the washback effect of the revised Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination in English in Hong Kong secondary schools. Findings indicate that the washback effect of the Examination brings about changes in teaching materials, largely due to the commercial characteristics of the Hong Kong society.

School-based assessment of science students' practical skills has two important roles—as a complement to written papers in public examinations and as a catalyst for enriching the science curriculum in schools. This article describes a quantitative study of the concerns chemistry and biology teachers experience as they engage in the process of implementation of a school-based assessment scheme for practical work. A 23-item questionnaire was developed to measure five categories of teacher concern: evaluation, information, management, consequence and refocusing. The nature of each category of teacher concern is discussed in relation to innovation adoption and implementation. Data were collected from 400 chemistry and 412 biology teachers in Hong Kong. Teachers' information and management concerns lessened in intensity when they became experienced users of a school-based assessment scheme. However, teaching experience alone could not motivate teachers to think more about the impact of school-based assessment on student learning, their professional development in student assessment and the possible refinements in their school-based assessment scheme. Concerns-based interventions are suggested to help teachers grow professionally.
[Copyright of Research in Science & Technological Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514042000290877]

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 ]