One of the main focuses of education is to empower learners with the abilities of learning how to learn. The Curriculum Development Council (2000, p. 54) points out that “Assessment could facilitate learning to learn”. This kind of facilitation, however, can only be achieved by using a “right” form of assessment. The less effective of the forms of assessment, suggested by the Curriculum Development Council, are the ones that inhibit or narrow learning opportunities and therefore, their use should be reduced to a minimum. The “right” forms, accordingly, are the ones that provide learners with plenty of learning opportunities. This paper first highlights the problems of the assessment practices in Hong Kong education contexts by reporting the criticisms made by a review team and the findings of a small-scale study into the assessment practices in Hong Kong schools. Then it stresses the close relationship of assessment and learning and discusses the place of alternative assessment in this kind of relationship. Ten assessment strategies have been developed to bring the concept of assessment for learning into practice in educational contexts.
[Copyright © 2003 University of Macau.]

Evaluation of teaching in higher education has drawn much attention due to the need for greater accountability and improvement in student learning. Our review of literature on Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) surveys suggests that considerable controversy and criticism have surrounded its use, fairness, and validity. Yet, many universities in Hong Kong are depending primarily on student feedback in SET surveys to provide evidence for their improvement of teaching and learning, and for their decisions made on teachers' pay-rise and tenure. If universities are to continue to use SET surveys as the main source of mechanism for measuring teaching effectiveness, teachers will have to understand and be aware of its purposes. But how much do we know about teachers' perceptions of teaching and learning and, consequently, their opinions of using SET surveys as the primary standardized evaluation mechanism of teaching for promotion and tenure and for teaching effectiveness?
Copyright of Educational Research and Evaluation is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd.

In recent years, large-scale international assessments have been increasingly used to evaluate and compare the quality of education across regions and countries. However, measurement variance between different versions of these assessments often posts threats to the validity of such cross-cultural comparisons. In this study, we investigated the cross-language, cross-cultural validity of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2006 Science assessment via three differential item functioning (DIF) analyses between the USA and Canada, Chinese Hong Kong and mainland China, and between the USA and mainland China. Furthermore, we explored three plausible causes of DIF via content analysis, namely language, curriculum and cultural differences. Our results revealed that differential curriculum coverage was the most serious cause of DIF among the three factors we investigated in this study, and differential content familiarity also contributed to DIF here. We discussed the implications of the findings for future international assessment development, and for how to best define 'scientific literacy' for students around the world.
[Copyright of Educational Psychology is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.946890]

Aiming at providing quality teaching and learning in higher education, the pendulum of education has recently swung back to Outcome-Based Learning (OBL), in which higher education institutes need to assess the extent to which they have attained those learning outcomes planned for their students. However, OBL assessment is still at its developmental stage with amorphous nature. For this, the present paper proposes a mixed-method approach and consolidates the assessment by providing different methods, namely expert-panel assessment, qualitative longitudinal study, institute-level survey, and course-level evaluation, as means of obtaining more precise results. Integrating findings from different methods is also briefly discussed.
[Copyright of Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://rcis.ro/en.html]