Read Writ (2016) 29:1013–1037

DOI 10.1007/s11145-015-9595-7

Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong

in recent years and their impact on teaching
and learning

Shek-kam Tse1 • Sau-yan Hui1

Published online: 6 October 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract An account is presented of how schools in Hong Kong have responded

to major changes to the official writing curriculum, from the highly structured,
whole-class approach which predominantly involved all students in the class
painstakingly learning written script and modeling their writing on carefully chosen
examples of traditional writing, to an approach which sees students regarding
writing as a vehicle for learning and a means of describing and relating personal
ideas, impressions and phenomena pertinent to the learner’s own learning and
intentions. Various sources of objective evidence are used to present an account of
the transition and problems teachers and schools faced in adapting to the new
curriculum. Teachers from primary and secondary schools were interviewed sepa-
rately; focus groups and departmental heads commented on transitional problems
and successes, with objective evidence being used to exemplify issues. The paper
examines progress and problems in the introduction of a curriculum spanning pri-
mary 1 to examination classes in the secondary school, setting a baseline for future
changes.

Keywords Chinese writing curriculum reform
Writing instruction
Writing

assessment
Writing abilities
Writing strategies

& Shek-kam Tse

sktse@hku.hk
Sau-yan Hui
huisy10@hku.hk
1
The University of Hong Kong, Room 615, Meng Wah Complex, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

123
1014 S. Tse, S. Hui

Introduction

Three years after the return of Hong Kong (HK) from British to Chinese sovereignty
in 1997, the HK Education Bureau (EDB) began to introduce a series of sweeping
curriculum reforms. Aware of the linguistic diversity of the people of HK, most of
whom were literate to varying degrees in Chinese and English, the Curriculum
Development Council (CDC) decreed that henceforth all school leavers should be
able to converse in Chinese and English, able to learn from their reading and to
write proficiently. In colonial days, HK had been at the commercial crossroads
between East and West, with trading transactions being conducted in English by a
relatively small number of citizens. The CDC hoped that, within a few years, every
school leaver would be skilled in negotiating with speakers of a number of key
international languages globally (CDC, 2001); schools would increasingly become
student-oriented rather than curriculum subject-centred; language skills would be
used as means of communication and independent study; and all school leavers
would be proficient in using Chinese and English to communicate within and
beyond HK (CDC, 2002). To attain these objectives, literacy education needed to
change substantially (CDC, 2002). This paper focuses on the Chinese Language
curriculum in HK schools, in particular on the writing element. Most schools have
responded with varying degrees of success to new curriculum alterations, the
present paper looking at a number of key reforms, particularly at their impact on the
teaching and learning of written Chinese in HK schools.

Literature review

Improving writing skills

Writing is a way of expressing oneself in an agreed script and involves mental and
physical processes controlled by cognitive and affective domains (Raimes, 1983).
Dyson (1995) claims that the interpersonal functions of writing not only aim at
achieving communicative goals, they also facilitate social interaction. Smith (1988)
suggests that people write principally for two reasons: to communicate with others
and to clarify their own understanding and thinking. Hence, fostering the writing
ability of students is one of the most important tasks facing language teachers in
school. Students learn different subject matter in different ways (Marton & Booth,
1997). Graham, MacArthur, and Fitzgerald (2007) suggest that students should be
encouraged when writing to draw upon their prior knowledge and relate new
learning to their previous experiences. In essence, students should produce writing
that reflects their thinking and feelings based on personal experiences relating to the
topic in hand. Importantly, teachers should be aware that the ways students have
been taught and learn crucially influences their writing capability.
Analyzing students’ learning, Krashen (1991) proposed his ‘Input Hypothesis’
which maintains that when students encounter input that is comprehensible, they are
better placed to acquire language and knowledge independently. Accordingly,

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1015

teachers should present intelligible input to students to ensure that it is learnt. They
should teach the composing processes and skills of writing to students, rather than
engaging them in traditional writing pedagogy, presenting composition topics,
requiring them to write about these topics then evaluating what has been written and
how well it has been expressed (Couzijin, 1999). Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)
suggest two models of the writing process: (a) the ‘‘knowledge telling’’ model
which involves systematic instruction about what has been written, and (b) the
‘‘knowledge transforming’’ model which presents passages written by distinguished
writers to students and asks them to use information-processing procedures to
reconstruct the meaning of what has been written.

Approaches to writing instruction

Different approaches to writing instruction can be interpreted according to the

intended foci, including language structures, text functions, themes and topics,
creative expression, the composing processes itself, content and the context of the
writing (Hyland, 2003). The teacher’s choice of curriculum objectives determines
lesson content and the teaching strategies deployed. Teachers of writing seldom opt
for one instructional focus alone: rather, they usually have several aims in mind,
with attention simultaneously directed to one or several educational aims (Hyland,
2003). Writing researchers usually consider three relatively dominant categories of
approaches to writing instruction found to be effective in promoting students’
writing proficiency: the process-writing approach, the teaching of selected skills and
the scaffolding of students’ writing (Graham & Perin, 2007). In process writing
lessons, students are involved by the teacher in cycles of planning, writing and
reviewing (Flower, 1989; Flower & Hayes, 1981). Students are viewed as the
owners of the text, going back and forth in different lesson activities in a cyclical
process. A second commonly encountered approach focuses on the systematic
teaching of writing strategies via brainstorming for example, and on grammar and
text structures. Third, the consolidation of students’ writing involves teachers
providing pertinent feedback and honing skills. By implication, if writing product is
the main concern, writing instruction will usually be knowledge-oriented. Here,
students study examples of model text, learn the linguistic features before them then
set about producing similar features in their own writing. On the other hand, the
approach of teachers addressing the process of writing tends to be predominantly
skill-based and competence-oriented. Students are purposely engaged in activities
that develop their skill in producing text, for example in how to plan and revise their
work (Seow, 2002).

Cultural background, political concerns and implementation

When considering factors that have brought about change to the HK writing
curriculum, cultural and political aspects must be considered. Traditionally, the
teaching approach of Chinese language teachers in HK has been teacher-oriented,
examination-oriented and text-dependent. Teachers have generally used examples
of classical text to teach students, the expectation being that students will learn how

123
1016 S. Tse, S. Hui

to write well by studying and imitating illustrious text. Receiving a regular diet of
such teaching, students tend not to develop a personal style of their own.
Importantly, since HK’s reunification with China, the social status of Chinese
language has been elevated, with a change in the choice of medium of instruction
from English to Chinese in many schools. Whereas teachers can draw upon
numerous writing experts in the West to point the way forward, Rijlaarsdam (2005)
notes that the teaching of Chinese writing has remained rigidly traditional in
character, with repetitive drill and practice, attention to calligraphic style and the
focus on the writing of others rather than on one’s own writing.
Following curriculum reforms in HK, paradigm shifts are evident in the
prescribed writing curriculum. Suggested learning foci for writing instruction in
classrooms usually target four domains: knowledge of writing, writing abilities and
process, writing strategies and attitudes towards writing (CDC, 2007, 2008).
Elements of the writing process feature prominently in lessons and students are
expected to learn how to plan (determine themes and structure); write (utilize
rhetorical devices); and revise (refine the use of vocabulary and structure) in their
writing. In terms of implementing curriculum change, reforms have been
implemented in five major areas: (1) intensive school support; (2) experimenting
with innovative approaches; (3) the training of in-service and pre-service teachers;
(4) consideration of research evidence; and (5) quality assurance (see Fig. 1). To
bolster curriculum development, the Education Bureau (EDB) sends curriculum
specialists into schools in order to provide on-the-spot support on developing

Fig. 1 Implementation of new writing curricula and elements

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1017

school-based writing and reading curricula. The EDB has also commissioned
tertiary institutes to research successful conceptual approaches to developing
students’ writing skills, and to hone associated practices and pedagogy. Such
research will be used for teacher training and hopefully help lay the foundation of
successful writing education in Hong Kong.

Reforms of the HK Chinese writing curriculum

Traditionally, the learning of Chinese featured extensive rote memorization by

students of prescribed texts: routines for years deemed indispensable for learning to
read and write Chinese. The rationale was that the passages students were required
to study in lessons had content for later inclusion in their own writing. In primary
schools, teachers usually used commercially produced textbooks that presented lots
of short, unrelated stories or passages that were not consistent in their writing style.
Classical Chinese literary passages were regularly presented, the expectation being
that students would incorporate features of the texts imitated into their own writing
(Nie & Tse, 2006). The Chinese Curriculum and instruction in HK schools were for
years dominated by such activities. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the writing
syllabus in primary schools stipulated that lesson content in school grades should
progress from sentence writing, to paragraph writing and, eventually, to passage
production (CDC, 1975, 1990a). The frequency and duration of writing lessons were
tightly prescribed, the emphasis in most lessons being on the teaching rather than on
how students actually learnt. At secondary level, the main concern was on writing
genres (CDC, 1978, 1990b). It was recommended that students were taught how to
write different types of text (narrative, exposition, argumentative and descriptive).
Model answers for public examinations for students were widely available and there
was little room for creativity. In the 1990s Hong Kong Certificate Education
Examinations, three topics were usually assigned in Chinese composition exam-
inations: one argumentative, one narrative topic and one descriptive. Students had to
select one of these topics and write a composition in a stipulated period of time. The
marking scheme specified how students should comprehend the topics addressed,
alongside the writing elements and linguistic features to be evident in the answers
offered (Tse et al., 1995).

Writing pedagogy reforms in HK since 2000

Teachers’ perceptions of Chinese writing lessons were heavily influenced by

traditional notions, and the practice of having students imitate classical texts was
widespread in the hope that, eventually, the students would be able to produce text
with similar features on their own (So, 1988; Wong, 1991). The linguistic features
in prescribed texts were memorised, students having little or no opportunity to be
creative in their own writing (Leung, 1993). For the majority of language teachers,
writing was little more than a means of assessing students (Tse & Hui, 1993).
Teachers asked students to write passages within set periods of time with designated
word length. For many students, getting high marks was the overriding goal of
writing. There was little scope for students to engage in everyday writing and the

123
1018 S. Tse, S. Hui

teacher was the only reader of the students’ efforts. In effect, teachers took the role
of assessors rather than mentors. The general writing process in classes is shown in
Fig. 2.
Lee, Leung, and Ko (2000) examined primary students’ interest in Chinese
Language lessons. Analyses of 1898 questionnaires revealed that ‘writing compo-
sition’ was regarded as the most boring lesson, an impression also found by Yeung
(1994). Tse (2004) researched the teaching approach in primary schools after the
writing curriculum reforms, and discovered that student-centeredness and the
child’s own school-based writing had become prominent, replacing the prescribed
curriculum previously applied uniformly in schools. Students were encouraged to
write expressively from P1 onward; writing was viewed as an indicator of the
students’ language ability; and expressive writing was used to promote general
language development. Mastering the process of writing was regarded as an
essential element in creative communication. Tse, Cheung, Kwan, and Loh (2005)
found that the newly prescribed stages for teaching writing Chinese composition
were found to be useful (see Fig. 3), and that flexibility was stressed in the selection
of topics for writing, a practice widely favoured by most students.
Writing strategies cover a range of approaches that students might apply to their
own writing. In planning their writing, students were now encouraged to use such
strategies as brainstorming and to think imaginatively and use different starting
points to generate different styles of writing. An important consideration for
equipping students with strategies was to nurture independent writing ability as a
means of ‘‘learning to learn’’. In a period of rapidly changing curriculum reform, the
Chinese Writing Curriculum moved away from being product-oriented to being
process-oriented. Importantly, the emphasis moved towards teaching students to
learn how to use writing as a means of personal and public communication (Tse,
Cheung, Kwan, & Loh, 2005).

Writing topic set by teacher

Briefing by teacher on writing topic

Composition writing by the students in strictly regulated

Marking of compositions by the teacher

Students rewrite composition based on the teacher’s corrections

Fig. 2 Traditional writing instruction

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1019

Topics setting:
1. Gap filling topics
2. Topics bank

Students-centred activities

Drawing Group discussions Inquiry learning Creative strategies

Varied forms of writing

Peer review

Recording and tracking of errors

Parents’ feedback

Teachers’ feedback
1. Specific Comments
2. Stickers for encouragement

Display of commendable writings

Fig. 3 Reformed writing instruction in primary schools

Research objectives

A major objective of the writing curriculum reform in HK was to teach students how
to learn to be skilful, productive writers: a key aim being to have them use writing
strategies they themselves deemed appropriate rather than only ever using teacher-
prescribed procedures. A major objective of this paper was to draw attention to
reforms leading to major differences in classrooms after the reform.

Research method

Scope of the analyses

This study focuses on four elements that changed during the curriculum reforms in
HK: the curriculum; perceptions of teachers and students; teaching practices; and

123
1020 S. Tse, S. Hui

the performance of students. Data were collected from different projects across
different years before and after the major curriculum reforms, different evidence
from different projects helping to achieve a degree of triangulation in the analyses.
As a central objective of the curriculum reforms in primary and secondary schools
involved teaching students to use writing to ‘‘learn how to learn’’, the analyses
reported below focus on changes in this regard in HK schools.

Data collection and sampling

Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered and multiple sources of
evidence were used as reflections of the impact of curriculum changes.

Curricula

1. In order to better understand changes to the HK writing curriculum,

documentary analyses were conducted based upon comparison of the Syllabus
for Teaching Writing in Chinese used before the curriculum reform (CDC,
1990a, b) and Suggested Learning Foci for Chinese Language Education
published by the CDC (2007, 2008). Comparisons were conducted to identify
variants and invariants, and to evaluate the impact of changes on the
curriculum. Documentary analyses included close examination of the Syllabus
for Teaching Writing in Chinese used before the reforms (CDC, 1990a, b), and
‘The Suggested Learning Foci for Chinese Language Education’ published as
part of the new curriculum (CDC, 2007, 2008). Also analysed were topics for
writing featuring in public examinations that reflected changes in the teaching
of Chinese writing.
2. As public examinations in HK mirror curriculum change in the sense that to an
extent they reflect the impact of changes to the curriculum, content analyses of
examiners’ reports were also conducted.
3. The writers were invited onto The Curriculum Development Committee and
contributed to the development of the new curriculum as participant observers.

Perceptions of current practices

Questionnaires about teachers’ and students’ perceptions of Chinese writing

instruction after the implementation of the new curriculum were distributed to
teachers and students in primary and secondary schools in order to gain an
understanding of their views about writing lessons in their school. 112 primary and
secondary schools participated in an EDB sponsored project, 357 copies of a student
questionnaire being collected from primary and secondary students, and 87
questionnaires being collected from teachers. Data from the questionnaire survey
were analyzed to gain an understanding of how students and teachers viewed current
approaches to writing instruction. Interviews and focus group discussions were also
carried out to ascertain teachers’ and curriculum leaders’ views about changes to the
writing curriculum; to monitor differences in students’ compositions produced prior

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1021

to and after curriculum reforms; and to understand the underlying rationale of the
teaching pedagogy of frontline teachers. Curriculum leaders were invited to discuss
changes that had occurred to school-based curricula following the publication of the
new curriculum, especially to the Chinese Writing Syllabus. Interview discussions
concentrated on writing instruction and how practice in the interviewee’s school
reflected the influence of the new curriculum in terms of goals, teaching materials,
pedagogy and assessment.

Teaching practice

1. Eleven teachers were interviewed, six primary and five secondary, between
them having 17 years of teaching experience. All had experience of teaching
Chinese following both the old and new curricula. Curriculum leaders
participating in the focus group were staff at various levels of school
management, and included school curriculum coordinators, Chinese subject
coordinators and school managers. In the interviews, teachers were asked about
classroom practices before and after the curriculum reforms to Chinese writing
instruction.
2. Classroom observations were conducted in 2 primary and 2 secondary schools.
Four writing lessons involving 4 teachers and 127 students were observed in an
effort to obtain a balanced perspective about the choice of practices commonly
witnessed in writing lessons, and to analyse the extent to which activities
reflected changes to the Chinese Language curriculum recommended by the
EDB. Classroom observations were conducted over a 2 months period, all the
classes observed being video-taped and the protocols transcribed. Data were
also obtained from analyses of the lesson structures and teacher pedagogy
utilized under the new curriculum.

Students’ performance

1. Students’ writing ability was studied through analysis of their compositions

using a version of the marking scheme of the HK Examination and Assessment
Authority used for the HK Diploma of Secondary Education Examination
(HKDSE). 93 items of work produced prior to the current round of curriculum
reforms, and 113 pieces of work produced under the current curriculum were
assessed. The marking scheme involved perspectives on content, language and
organization. An independent between-group t test was applied to compare the
writing performance of the two groups of Secondary 5 students.
2. Since 2001, HK has taken part in a 5-yearly international assessment known as
the ‘‘Progress in International Reading Literacy Study’’ (PIRLS). The sample of
students in each round was about 4500 Primary 4 students. A study of students’
writing performance was carried out using the PIRLS data from the 2001, 2006
and 2011 surveys. In addition to multiple choice questions, there were
construct-response questions focussing on the literacy phenomena underlying

123
1022 S. Tse, S. Hui

the framework that reflected the interactive, constructive view of reading

(Martin, Mullis, & Foy, 2015).

The evidence made use of in this paper is from a number of research probes, the
data from respondents being gathered from multiple sources by very experienced
researchers. Every effort was made to avoid bias and precautions to ensure that all
data were reliable and valid.

Results

Curricula

Changes relating to curricular documents on writing instruction

One purpose of the documentary analysis was to identify key changes made in
curricular documents on writing instruction. The Syllabus for Teaching Writing in
Chinese (CDC, 1990a, b) in P1 emphasized sentence construction, and extended to
paragraph writing at P2. Starting from P3, students were required to write passages,
and to produce different types of text, including narrative, expository and
argumentative essays (see Table 1). In essence, the Syllabus focused on the
complexity of students’ language use in terms of their writing proficiency. The
learning foci of Chinese writing under the new curriculum did not adopt the earlier
approach to gauge students’ writing ability. Writing ability was here principally
viewed from the perspective of the writing process. Instead of ‘‘how good the
language used in writing was’’, the new curriculum showed more concern over
‘‘how text could be produced’’ (see Appendix Table 6).
As stated earlier, for secondary students learning writing before the implemen-
tation of the curriculum reform, the focus was chiefly on writing different genres.
The length of time to be spent on teaching the writing of each genre was explicitly
prescribed in the Syllabus (see Table 2). Similar to the suggested learning foci for
primary schools, secondary students were now required to concentrate on the
process of producing text. At the same time, their writing strategies and attitudes
were incorporated in the learning foci (see Appendix Table 6).

Table 1 Summary of learning

Grade Learning content
content for primary schools
under the old syllabus
P1 Make sentences based on the pictures
Use vocabulary in the text to make sentences
P2 Combine sentences into paragraphs
P3 Write simple texts based on the pictures
P4 Write simple narrative texts and stories
P5 Write simple expository texts
P6 Write narrative, expository and argumentative texts

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1023

Changes in the nature of assessment topics in Chinese writing assessment

Analyses indicate that, although candidates now had to choose one topic out of
three, the requirements for writing in the new curriculum had fewer restrictions than
before on the type of text that students encounter in their writing. Students were
allowed to employ different types of writing in their passages, and to use any
writing style they wished. There were no prescribed genres for candidates, and the
topics for writing were general and not confined to specific events and occasions
(see Appendix Tables 7, 8).

Changes relating to school-based writing curricula

In the focus group discussions, the curriculum leaders reported their views about
modifications to the school-based Chinese writing curriculum, focusing on four aspects
of the curriculum: goals, teaching materials, pedagogy and assessment. In terms of
curriculum goals, most curriculum leaders indicated that the new school-based
curriculum focused on the nurturing of students’ writing ability. In the past, the
curriculum had simply expected students to mimic forms of organisation, language and
content present in the passages they had been asked to read. In contrast, in the new
curriculum, assignments were presented in an order of increasing demand and in the
light of each student’s previous accomplishments. Learning outcomes were progres-
sively stipulated and teachers and learners had a clear picture of how each student’s
writing ability would advance along lines of improvement outlined for students at the
various stages of learning progression. A ‘‘topic for writing’’ was commonly used and
given to students in writing classes, usually without any supporting learning materials.
Under the new curriculum, more pre-writing tasks were arranged in order to nurture
students’ writing skills and teachers made use of teaching materials much richer and
more contemporary in style and content than was the case previously.
Pedagogically, teachers in the past seldom organised activities to encourage
students’ independent writing (Tse & Shum, 2000). In contrast, teachers following the
new curriculum tended to use more progressive teaching strategies and to organise

Table 2 Time distribution for each type of writing under the old syllabus (secondary schools)
Type of writing Secondary 1 Secondary 2 Secondary 3 Secondary 4 Secondary
(%) (%) (%) (%) 5

Writing on a given topic Flexible

Narration 40 20 10 10
Description 10 20 20 20
Expressive
writing
Exposition 10 20 30 35
Argumentation
Practical writing 20 20 20 20
Other types of 20 20 20 15
writing

123
1024 S. Tse, S. Hui

activities for pairs or small groups of classmates. However, some curriculum leaders
were concerned about teachers’ professional development and the new curriculum,
noting that it seemed to require Chinese Language teachers to provide very high
quality writing instruction and to use more varied writing resources than was the case
previously. In terms of assessment, the teachers said that they had to assess students’
writing ability by giving more pointed comment on each student’s writing than was
the case in the past. They were also encouraged to use varying assessment strategies,
for instance, peer evaluation, check-list evaluation and the like. Some teachers said
that this meant more work than was the case previously.

Perceptions

Teacher and student perceptions of the reformed writing instruction

Questions in the student questionnaire focused on their perceptions of writing instruction,

knowledge about writing skills and attitudes towards writing. The results revealed that
over 70 % of the students did not think that writing was difficult. In terms of the writing
process, two-thirds considered themselves as being capable of organizing their writing
(68.4 %) and organizing compositions into paragraphs (66.2 %). Most did not consider
that imitating the writing techniques in classical texts helped their own writing (81.3 %),
and most (73.1 %) preferred open-ended topics for compositions (see Appendix
Table 9). Teachers, now often taught specific writing strategies (91.3 %), although many
(67.8 %) regarded this as a difficult task. In writing lessons, most teachers said that they
assisted some students when they were composing (78.9 %), and they gave advice and
feedback to students about revisions (87.8 %). They also publicly displayed outstanding
examples of writing (88.3 %) and took the opportunity to exemplify the criteria of good
compositions to students (78.2 %; see Appendix Table 10).

Practices

Changes in teaching practices before and after the new curriculum reforms

In the interviews, the teachers compared their teaching practice in writing lessons
before and after the curriculum reform. Teaching practices adopted by teachers in
writing lessons before and after the reform are listed and categorised in Table 11 of
Appendix. The teachers’ views on their teaching practice are organised into three
categories. The first category, teaching the writing process, refers to practices
relating to teaching students how to plan and write a passage. The second category,
pre-writing activities, includes the teaching activities that teachers usually adopt
before students start to write, and mostly involves helping students to plan their
writing. The goals of such activities were mostly to teach the process of planning,
and are categorised separately in order to yield a fuller portrayal of the teaching
activities in class. The third category comprises activities and actions after the
students had finished their writing, including providing feedback, praise, guidance
and so on. Observable changes were quite evident in the teaching of the writing
process and in the conducting of pre-writing activities. It is apparent that the

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1025

teachers were now paying more attention to nurturing cognitive processes in their
students writing, especially those focussed upon in the new curriculum.

Classroom observations

Four lessons on Chinese writing in primary and secondary schools were observed, the
lesson structures being described and categorised in Table 3. The goals of the two
primary school lessons were similar, both being designed to nurture students’
narrative skills. Lesson 1 utilised brainstorming to stimulate students’ creative
thinking, whilst Lesson 2 used mental imagery to help students bring the events to
life. The two lessons in secondary schools were intended to develop students’
argumentative ability, with both making use of drama as teaching strategies. Students
were engaged in different roles in specified contexts, and the activities were designed
to stimulate points of argument, based on the positions being held. In the observations,
clear goals for learning were found and customized to suit different levels of student
competence. Teachers also managed to use appropriate strategies for the type of
writing composition they were teaching in lessons. This use of more creative and
interactive strategies when teaching writing can be regarded as a departure from the
traditional approaches of memorizing and imitating text studied.

Performance

Students’ writing performance

In order to understand how students’ general writing proficiency has been influenced
by the new curriculum, 93 essays produced by Secondary 5 students before the new
curriculum reform and 113 after the reform were collected in different secondary
schools. The general ability of the intakes of students in the two groups differed
little over the years as the banding of the schools under the EDB assessment was
unchanged. An independent sample t test was conducted to check the statistical
significance of differences in the two sets of attainment scores (Table 4).
Results of the variance testing suggest a significant statistical difference in the
overall writing performance of the students before (M = 9.00, SD = 1.68) and after
(M = 13.50, SD = 2.33) the occasion of the curriculum reform; t (92) = 12.10,
p \ .001. Highly significant statistical differences were observed in each category
of writing performance, i.e. content [t (92) = 9.70, p \ .001], language
[t (92) = 14.13, p \ .001], and organisation [t (92) = 8.90, p \ .001].
In addition to compositions, assessment of students’ writing ability also included
the ability to respond and communicate in appropriate written forms. In this regard,
the researchers examined the adequacy of responses in reading assessments before
and after the changed writing curriculum. In the PIRLS tests, a sizeable number of
questions required students to provide written answers. The PIRLS tests also had
different levels of cognitive tests. Higher levels included the summarization of
integrated content and also the ability to make personal written comments. Reliable
data were drawn from the large-scale PIRLS assessment used to compare 3 cohorts
(years 2001, 2006 and 2011) of Primary 4 students’ writing ability. Students are

123
1026 S. Tse, S. Hui

Table 3 Four writing lessons in primary and secondary schools

Primary Secondary

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 1 Lesson 2

Goals To develop students’ To develop students’ To develop students’ To develop students’

ability to narrate ability to narrate ability to argue ability to argue
an event an event and with clear points with clear points
describe the and to reason with
process examples
Teaching The teacher provided The teacher asked The teacher asked Before the class, the
flow the context the students to sit students to sit in a teacher asked
; comfortably, close circle, and placed a students to collect
their eyes and chair in the middle pieces of news
The teacher guided relax related to the topic
the students to ;
; and bring them to
conduct a The teacher told the class
brainstorming The teacher started students she would
session to surmise to play background act a girl (who ;
the cause(s) and music and provide wanted to commit The teacher divided
result(s) of the vocal guidance to suicide) when the class into two
event help students’ sitting down on the groups
; memory of events chair in the middle. ;
; Students would
Brainstorming in become the girl’s The teacher
groups Each student noted friends to argue introduced the
; down the points with and stop her activity of the
and shared their forum theatre
Group presentation experience with ;
and vote for the ;
his/her partner The teacher sat on
best story the chair and The teacher
; introduced the
; started the activity
The teacher asked topic, and asked
Students playing students to present ; each group of
different roles in his/her ideas The teacher stopped students to take
the story to write playing the role, one side to the
an essay ;
and asked students argument
The teacher asked to list the points
students to draw a ;
for argument
mind map and mentioned The two groups of
make an outline students argued
; about the topic
;
The teacher analysed ;
The teacher gave the points for
feedback to argument with The teacher stopped
students’ outlines students, and the activity, and
; pointed out that an asked students to
argumentative summarise the
Students wrote about points and
the topic essay should have
a clear point of examples
view mentioned

; ;

The teacher asked The teacher analysed

students to select the points and
one of the points to examples with
write an essay students and
provided feedback

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1027

Table 3 continued
Primary Secondary

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 1 Lesson 2

;
The teacher asked
students to take
the side they
preferred and to
write an essay
Highlighted Brainstorming Mental imagery Teacher in Role Forum theatre
strategy (TiR)

Table 4 Comparison of students’ writing performance before and after the curriculum reform
Content (full = 7) Language (full = 7) Organisation (full = 7) Total (full = 21)

Writing before curriculum reform (N = 93)

M 3.14 2.92 2.94 9.00
SD (0.72) (0.63) (0.65) (1.68)
Writing after curriculum reform (N = 113)
M 4.62 4.48 4.40 13.50
SD (0.90) (0.78) (0.87) (2.33)
t 9.70*** 14.13*** 8.90*** 12.10***

*** p \ .001

taken to be proficient readers and writers if they obtain good results in the PIRLS
tests (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, Trong, & Sainsbury, 2009).
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to compare the significance of
differences in the students’ response item correctness between PIRLS 2001
(n = 5049), PIRLS 2006 (n = 4710) and PIRLS 2011 (n = 3875).The results
reveal that a very significant difference was found: F (2, 13,631) = 309.76,
p \ .000 for the three cohorts (see Table 5). Post hoc comparisons using the
Dunnett T3 test indicate that the mean score of PIRLS 2011 students (M = 53.04,
SD = 20.28) was significantly different from those of the other two groups (PIRLS
2006: M = 62.70, SD = 22.01, p \ .001; PIRLS 2011: M = 62.61, SD = 23.39,
p \ .001). However, the construct response item correctness of PIRLS 2006 and
PIRLS 2011 participants did not differ significantly. Taken together, the results

Table 5 Comparison of students’ writing performance before and after the curriculum reform
PIRLS 2001 PIRLS 2006 PIRLS 2011 F Sig.
(n = 5049) (n = 4710) (n = 3875)

Construct response item 53.19 (20.25) 62.70 (22.01) 62.6 (23.39) 309.755 0.000
correctness

N = 13,631

123
1028 S. Tse, S. Hui

suggest that the scores of the post-education reform group (PIRLS 2006 and 2011)
really did display significant differences in terms of written expression in construct
response items (see Table 5).

Discussion and conclusions

Curriculum reforms in HK have highlighted the need for education to be student-

centred rather than subject-centred wherever possible. Writing instruction under the
old curriculum focused on ‘‘what should be taught’’, whereas the new curriculum
shifted concern to ‘‘what might be learned’’ (Wong, 2002). In this regard, teachers
have become aware that teaching mere subject matter to students is not enough
(Wong, 2002). Specifically, the Chinese writing curriculum has shifted from
teaching students to write different genres to discovering what strategies students
need to learn in order to write clearly and to develop cognitive skills of writing.
Analysis of the questionnaires indicates that the teachers in the research possessed a
good knowledge of the delivery of the writing component of the new Chinese
curriculum, and how to teach students to execute writing tasks. The school-based
Chinese Writing Curricula suggested by the curriculum leaders in the focus group
interview in the study was judged to be in large part competence-oriented rather
than knowledge-based. According to interviewed teachers, they preferred to plan
learning activities in order to teach students how to interpret topics, identify key
words in passages, determine goals and writing genre, organize passage content and
select appropriate materials. Consequently, they welcomed the new curricular goals,
teaching and learning materials, pedagogy and assessment in the new writing
curriculum. They also approved of the new focus on developing students’ personal
writing ability, use of different writing styles in different circumstances and as a
means of knowledge transformation (c.f. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987).
A significant change to instructional activities is that pre-writing tasks had
become richer than was the case previously, and using a framework to help students
to write had become common-practice. The teacher interview data suggest that they
think it is beneficial to involve students in a number of tasks before independent
writing. For example, students might make an outline and use a mind map to
structure their thoughts. Group discussions were conducted so that students could
learn from each other and thoughts could be stimulated during planning. Based on
discussion outcomes, teachers also preferred to comment on students’ outlines. It is
evident from the interview data that writing instruction under the new curriculum
incorporates listening, speaking and reading activities, making writing instruction
more integrated and less fragmented than it was previously. This is a clear advance
from the old curriculum that stressed the rigid development of students’ literacy.
From the lesson observations, observers were able to report that, when developing
students’ narrative skills, some teachers applied techniques, including brainstorming
and mental imagery, to enrich students’ ideas of the topic before beginning to write.
In terms of argumentation skills, techniques in drama education were often
employed to help students become involved in role play. Debates were also used to
highlight possible points of argument and the content of essays.

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1029

Different sources of data (from teachers and students) emphasised the point that
changes to the writing curriculum and instruction after 2000 have significantly
impacted on students’ writing performance. It is evident that, in the course of
curriculum reform, teachers have been persuaded to adopt different teaching
strategies to teach writing. This change in instructional practice has also brought
about a change in the perception of what constitutes good teaching of reading and
writing. Teachers no longer believe that students will readily learn and absorb
writing skills simply by reading classical texts. The underpinning rationale was that
the writing ability of students was the result of reading and that writing should be
learned in implicit rather than systematic ways, for instance through observations,
imitation and sometimes personal perceptions. After the changes to the writing
curriculum, teachers still have to teach reading but the focus has shifted to
developing students’ reading skills and strategies, and inspiring students’ thinking
and how they might use their reading to widen their experiences and inform the
content of their writing. Moreover, teachers now devote more instructional time to
teaching different writing processes and strategies. Along with the changes made to
writing instruction, good practice possibilities were raised in the different seminars.
Good practices compiled in an album of outstanding teaching practice were awarded
the Chief Executive’s Award for Teaching Excellence in 2010.
In traditional writing lessons, students worked independently completing their
writing. An important reason for disturbing students’ writing was to assess their
writing performance and capability to report in words ideas housed in the mind.
From the interview data, the writers learned that it has now become common
practice for teachers to use group activities to trigger students’ thoughts and
encourage them to learn from one another. Peer evaluation has also been adopted by
some teachers. In addition, teachers have become used to providing feedback during
the process of writing rather than writing post hoc comments to students and asking
them to rewrite parts of their essays. Students clearly learn from their interactions
with teachers and fellow students. In fact, some teachers prefer to utilise checklists
to assess students’ writing. Compared with the traditional way of writing comments
on students’ works, a key advantage of using a diagnostic checklist is that it helps
students to be aware of what they are expected to learn, and how well they are doing
(Tse & Shum, 2000; Kwan & Lee, 2012).
Analyses of the data reveal that, in the new Chinese Writing Curriculum, the
foci are on students’ writing and the extent to which it serves its purpose.
Teachers use a variety of oral and literacy activities in class to anchor and develop
students’ writing ability. The new curriculum has been implemented in HK for
over a decade now, and changes are quite apparent in most schools. The advent of
the new curriculum coincided with the widespread explosion in computer-assisted
writing using spell-checkers, phraseology guidance and written exchanges using
hand-held and table-mounted computer devices. Many teachers have responded by
adopting instructional practices to accommodate exciting developments in
information technology to boost students’ writing performance and communicative
skills. They have also been inspired to increase their role as partners in helping
students develop.

123
1030
Appendix
See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Table 6 Learning foci of Chinese writing under the new curriculum (primary and secondary schools)
Learning foci Description (primary
schools)
Writing abilities
1a. Understand the topic Determine the content based
and determine the on the requirement
theme Select appropriate modes of expression (narration, description, expressive writing,
exposition and argumentation)
1b. Structure and Select appropriate materials for writing
organization Write with different
paragraphs
Write with beginnings and
endings
1c. Written expression Use standard written language
Use rhetorical devices
Use punctuation marks accurately
1d. Revision Revise sentences with obvious
mistakes
2. Use of modes of Narration (e.g. linear and non-
expression linear narratives)
Description (e.g. direct and
indirect description)
Expressive writing (direct and
indirect expression)
Exposition (e.g.
categorization, comparison,
giving examples)
Argumentation (e.g. giving
examples to support
argument)
3a. Practical writing Determine readers and use appropriate formats and language
3b. Literary writing Express experience, feelings
and imagination
123
S. Tse, S. Hui
Description (secondary schools)
Determine the reader and the central idea
Arrange the level of details in different parts to reflect the
central idea of the text
Organize the structure (e.g. beginning and ending of the
text, transition and coherence, arrangement of different
parts in the text)
Use different rhetorical devices
Refine the use of words, phrases and sentences
Refine the views and adjust the materials
Adjust the structure of the text
Narration
Use different narrative devices (e.g. linear and non-
linear narratives)
Write in different persons
Description
Use direct and indirect description
Use description of persons, sceneries and environment
Expressive writing, expressing feelings towards persons,
events, objects and
Direct expression and indirect expression
Exposition
Use different expositional methods (e.g.
categorization, comparison, presenting data, analyzing
through tables and figures, giving determination,
generalizing principles through stories)
Argumentation
Use different argumentative techniques (e.g. giving
examples, cause and effect, comparison, analogy, using
metaphors, using counterargument, arguing with
different perspectives, contrast)
Use basic literary techniques to write literary texts
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1031

Table 6 continued
Learning foci Description Description (secondary schools)
(primary schools)

Writing strategies
Master writing skills
Writing attitudes and habits
Positive writing attitudes and
good writing habits
Relate daily life and previous knowledge to plan for writing
Use different writing techniques for different purposes, contexts and targets
Use different resources to Use association and imagination to enrich the content
assist in writing Use dictionaries, encyclopaedia to assist in writing
Collect materials for writing from different sources
Use different types of materials (e.g. tables and figures,
images, etc.) to strengthen the effect
Take pleasure in sharing the reflections on writing
Take the initiative to write different types of texts
Be ready to revise the Be ready to revise the writing based on other people’s
writing opinions

Table 7 Writing topics in public examinations (1999–2000)

1999
1 Argumentative Are people in Hong Kong polite? To include points of arguments, basis of
writing Discuss your views argument and the arguing process
2 Expressive Express your feelings towards your To express feelings
writing friend’s sharing on her/his worries
3 Descriptive Describe one of your classmates who To describe the appearance, conversation,
writing is overbearing in class behaviour and thoughts of the person
2000
1 Narrative Narrate an experience of being lost in To narrate the detailed process of the
writing an excursion experience
2 Descriptive Describe special scenery on the street To describe the scenery of different shops
writing and in different seasons
3 Argumentative Discus your view towards a popular To include points of arguments, basis of
writing newspaper argument and the arguing process

Table 8 Writing topics in public examinations (2013–2014)

Year No. Topic Requirements in marking scheme

2013 1 ‘‘Once I participated in an activity, and the The text could focus on narration with
experience made me realize that what I don’t some argumentation and feeling
want to be done to me should not be done to expression
others.’’ Write a passage based on the
description and your experience
2 ‘‘Children are not a bottle to be filled but a There is no restriction on the writing type
flame to be fired.’’ Write a passage on the
topic of ‘‘Growth’’ based on the account and
experience
3 Discuss how prejudice could be reduced The text could focus on argumentation
and also generalize principles through
telling stories

123
1032 S. Tse, S. Hui

Table 8 continued

Year No. Topic Requirements in marking scheme

2014 1 ‘‘Something happened today, and I thought of There is no restriction on the writing type
raising my views. But in the end I decided to
keep silent. I think keeping silent is
necessary.’’ This is the beginning of the
passage. Use ‘‘Necessary Silence’’ as the
title, and continue to write a composition
2 ‘‘Don’t be the first one, and don’t be the last The text could focus on argumentation
one.’’ Express your opinions towards the and also generalize principles through
statement telling stories
3 Based on the picture, write a passage on the There is no restriction on the writing type
topic of ‘‘Sunshine and Shadow’’

Table 9 Analysis of students’ response (N = 357)

No. Questions Mean

Yes No
(%) (%)

1 Does your teacher teach you different writing methods? 89.5 10.5
2 Do you think the ways your teacher teaches you about writing composition are 73.7 26.3
useful?
3 Do you think writing compositions is difficult? 26.3 73.7
4 Will you consult your teacher when writing a composition? 80.8 19.2
5 Do you learn from the good writings the teacher shows you in the class? 82.4 17.6
6 Do you like your writing? 77.4 22.6
7 Do you like the ways your teacher gives feedback to your writing? 66.8 33.2
8 Do you know how to write a good composition? 67.5 32.5
9 Do you know how to organize your writing? 68.4 31.6
10 Do you know how to separate your composition into paragraphs? 66.2 33.8
11 Do you think it is easy to find something to write in your composition? 65.3 34.7
12 Do you like to imitate the ways of writing that are used in the classical texts that 12.4 87.6
you have learnt in reading lessons?
13 Do you think the ways of writing in the classical texts can help you to write your 18.7 81.3
own compositions?
14 Do you like open-ended topics that the teacher assigns for your writing? 73.1 26.9
15 Do you find open-ended topics are difficult to write on? 14.6 85.4

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1033

Table 10 Analysis of teachers’ response (N = 87)

No. Questions Mean

Yes No
(%) (%)

1 Do you teach writing strategies before you assign composition topics to your 91.3 8.7
students?
2 Do you adopt different instructions in your writing lessons? 89.7 10.3
3 Do you think teaching writing strategies is difficult? 67.8 32.2
4 Do you offer help to your students during the process of writing? 78.9 21.1
5 Do you show good writings to your students for their reference? 88.3 11.7
6 Do you find the content of students’ compositions interesting, rich and 70.5 29.5
diversified?
7 Do you give comment to your students (in written form) when you mark their 87.8 12.2
compositions?
8 Do you highlight the criteria of good compositions to your students? 78.2 21.8
9 Do you teach your students the ways of organizing a composition? 74.6 25.4
10 Do you teach your students the ways of separating a composition into 73.5 26.5
paragraphs?
11 Do you teach your students how to find materials for writing? 75.1 24.9
12 Do you require your students to imitate the classical texts when they write a 20.3 79.7
composition?
13 Do you think writing techniques in the classical texts can help your students to 40.6 59.4
write a composition?
14 Do you assign open-ended topics to your students for writing a composition? 78.4 21.6
15 Do you think the open-ended topics are better than a specific composition topic? 77.4 22.6

123
 Table 11 Teaching practices in writing lessons before and after curriculum reform (N = 11)
1034

Before curriculum reform After curriculum reform

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11

123
Teaching writing process
Explain the topic to the students 4 4 4 4 4
Teach students how to interpret the topic 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Teach students how to identify key words in 4 4 4
the topic
Teach students how to determine the goal of 4 4 4 4 4 4
writing
Teach students how to determine the writing 4 4
genre
Teach students how to organise the passage 4 4 4 4 4
Teach students how to select appropriate 4 4 4 4
materials
Pre-writing activities
Ask students to model writing on passages 4 4
learned
Ask students to make an outline 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ask students to draw mind map to organise 4 4 4 4 4
ideas
Arrange group discussions to plan writing 4 4 4 4 4 4
Give feedback to students’ outline 4 4
Provide exemplars 4 4 4 4
Post-writing activities
Peer evaluation 4 4 4 4 4
S. Tse, S. Hui
 Table 11 continued

Before curriculum reform After curriculum reform

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11

Teacher feedback 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Analyse students’ good works to the whole 4 4 4 4 4 4
class
Ask students to rewrite 4 4
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent…
1035

123
1036 S. Tse, S. Hui

References

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Couzijin, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on
learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109–142.
Curriculum Development Committee. (1975). Syllabus for primary schools: Chinese language (primary
1–6) 1975. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Committee.
Curriculum Development Committee. (1978). Syllabus for secondary schools: Chinese language
(secondary 1–5) 1978. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Committee.
Curriculum Development Committee. (1990a). Syllabus for primary schools: Chinese language (primary
1–6) 1990. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Committee.
Curriculum Development Committee. (1990b). Syllabus for secondary schools: Chinese language
(secondary 1–5) 1990. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Committee.
Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculum
development. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Chinese language education key learning area curriculum
guide (primary 1 to secondary 3). Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council. (2007). Suggested learning foci for Chinese language education in
secondary schools. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council. (2008). Suggested learning foci for Chinese language education in
primary schools. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Dyson, A. H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written
Communication, 12, 4–46.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 40,
282–311.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365–387.
Graham, S., MacArthur, A. C., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York:
Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. Paper presented at the Georgetown Round
Table for Languages and Linguistics. April 3, 1991. Washington, D.C.
Kwan, Y. W., & Lee, O. W. (2012). Self-regulated learning: A study on the checklist peer evaluation
method of evaluating Chinese composition of Hong Kong junior secondary school students. New
Horizons, 60(1), 53–60.
Lee, C. K. J., Leung, C. W., & Ko, M. L. R. (2000). Primary Chinese language curriculum and
instruction: Student perspective. New Horizons, 42, 42–49.
Leung, Y. B. (1993). The use of dialect in the Pearl River Delta Region: A sociolinguistic study. Hong
Kong: Contemporary China Research Centre, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (2015). Assessment design for PIRLS, PIRLS literacy, and
PIRLS in 2016. In I. V. S. Mullis & M. O. Martin (Eds.), PIRLS 2016 assessment framework (2nd
ed., pp. 55–69). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A., Trong, K., & Sainsbury, M. (2009). PIRLS 2011 assessment
framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Nie, W., & Tse, S. K. (2006). Gao Deng Shi Fan Yuan Xiao Jiao Cai (language curriculum and pedagogy
theories). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rijlaarsdam, G. (2005). Preface. In M. S. K. Shum & D. L. Zhang (Eds.), Teaching writing in Chinese
speaking areas (pp. 7–9). New York: Springer.
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),
Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 315–320). UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

123
Chinese writing curriculum reforms in Hong Kong in recent… 1037

So, M. C. (1988). My opinion in Chinese language education. In P. K. Wong (Ed.), Teaching secondary
school Chinese language (pp. 20–23). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Chinese Language Society, The
University of Hong Kong.
Tse, S. K. (2004). A teaching and learning writing unit based on author purposes. In S. K. Tse & W.
Y. Wu (Eds.), Chinese language curriculum and good practice in three countries and two regions
(pp. 181–195). Guangzhou, China: Guangdong Higher Educational Press.
Tse, S. K., Cheung, W. M., Kwan, C. Y., & Loh, E. K. Y. (2005). The Hong Kong writing project:
Writing reform in primary schools. Studies in writing: Teaching writing in Chinese speaking areas,
New York (pp. 171–197). USA: Springer.
Tse, S. K., Ho, W. K., Lee, T., Wong, C., Chan, W. S., Law, N., et al. (1995). Education papers 21:
Chinese language education for 21st century: A Hong Kong perspective. Hong Kong: Faculty of
Education, The University of Hong Kong.
Tse, S. K., & Hui, Y. C. (1993). Writing complete text, primary one or primary three. New Horizon, The
Journal of Education, 34, 28–33.
Tse, S. K., & Shum, M. S. K. (2000). Using diagnostic checklist to teach Chinese writing. Hong Kong: In-
service Teacher Education Programme (INSTEP), Faculty of Education, The University of Hong
Kong.
Wong, T. K. (1991). Zhong liu xuesheng zuowen juan li de luoji yubing (logical errors in the
compositions of secondary 6 students). Zhongguo Yuwen Tongxun, 12, 9–25.
Wong, H. W. (2002). Research on major changes at the school level in parallel to the launching of
‘‘Curriculum Tryout: Collaborative learning material development’’ scheme of secondary Chinese
language from the school years of 1999/2000 to 2001/2002’’. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Yeung, K. H. (1994). A study of the curriculum development of Chinese writing in secondary schools in
Hong Kong. Unpublished M. Phil thesis. Chinese University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong.

123