Educational Evaluation in East Asia Emerging Issues and Challenges

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
IN EAST ASIA: EMERGING ISSUES

AND CHALLENGES
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
IN EAST ASIA: EMERGING ISSUES
AND CHALLENGES
SAMUEL S. PENG
AND
JOHN CHI-KIN LEE
EDITORS
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

New York
Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of
information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or
reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated
and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in
this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise
contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A
DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Avaailable upon request

ISBN 9781606928875
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

  New York
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Samuel S. Peng and John C. K. Lee
Part I. Practices and Challenges 11
Chapter 1 Education Evaluation and Assessment in Taiwan:
Status, Innovations and Challenges 13
Mu-lin Lu
Chapter 2 Educational Evaluation in Singapore:
Current Status and Future Challenges 23
R. Subramaniam
Chapter 3 Educational Evaluation in South Korea:
Current Issues and Future Prospects 35
Sun-Geun Baek
Chapter 4 Development of Educational Evaluation and Challenges
of Practicing Educational Evaluation in Thailand 45
Sirichai Kanjanawasee
Chapter 5 Educational Evaluation in Hong Kong:
Status and Challenges 61
John Chi-Kin Lee
Part II. Variations and Evoluation 73
Chapter 6 Educational Evaluation and Quality Assurance:
The Case of Hong Kong 75
Nicholas Sun-keung Pang
Chapter 7 School-Based Assessments (SBA):
Implementation and Challenges in the Malaysian Context 93
Suan Yoong
Chapter 8 Current Issues Regarding the School Evaluation System in Japan 111
Yasuhiko Washiyama
vi Contents
Chapter 9 Teacher Evaluation in Thailand:

Current Issues and Future Prospects 117
Pruet Siribanpitak
Chapter 10 PISA as a Catalyst for Capacity Building for Educational
Evaluation in Macao 129
Kwok-cheung Cheung
Contributors 143
Index 147
In: Educational Evaluation in East Asia ISBN 978-1-60692-887-5
Editor: Samuel S. Peng and John Ch-Kin Lee © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Samuel S. Peng1 and John C. K. Lee2

1
Center for Research on Educational Evaluation and Development,
National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
2
Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
BACKGROUND
Educational evaluation plays an important role in the pursuit of educational excellence
(Kennedy and Lee, 2008). At one level, it has been used in the evaluation of students'
individual differences and performance.
At another level, it has been used to contribute to an understanding of the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of institutions and academic programs, as well as such matters as
the specific qualities of school management, curriculum, teaching staff, pedagogical practices
and educational policies.
Educational evaluation is not a simple look in the mirror, a vain exercise; it is an effective
way to provide evidence for all decision-making pertaining to resource allocation, program
improvement, personnel hiring and promotion, selection of candidates, and educational
policy-making. Evaluation is, in fact, an integral part of the multi-faceted process of
enhancing quality and attaining excellence.
Educational evaluation, as concept and as a set of practices, is not new in East Asia.
However, in recent years it has received much greater attention from the general public as
well as the educational community because of changes in the political and economic
conditions in society.
First, as the demand for educational resources increases, both the government and the
schools as a whole need to know how well their resources have been effectively allocated and
used; they also need to know the extent to which their objectives have been achieved.
Evaluation is thus a necessary mechanism for monitoring the educational quality of
institutions and programs.
Secondly, as education in general and postsecondary education in particular have been
expanded in response to global competition and the generally rapid rate of economic
2 Samuel S. Peng and John C. K. Lee
development in society, there are concerns about the equity and quality of education on the
part of all stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, school administrators and
policy-makers.
Subsequently, there have been strong demands for an effective evaluation system to
ensure equity and quality, on the one hand, and proficiency and productivity on the other.
Moreover, constant reforms of the educational system increase the demand for input, process
and outcome evaluation. The great attention given to accountability and quality assurance
makes the practice of evaluation more complex and innovative, with ever more diversified
paradigms, methods and approaches.
Thirdly, globalization increases awareness of the importance of a country’s international
competitiveness and stimulates interest in international comparisons of student ability and
competence. For example, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA) and the Center for Educational Research and Innovation of the
Organization for Economic and Development (CERI/OECD) have been carrying out
international surveys of student achievement in science, mathematics, language and civic
education.
The results of their surveys have motivated the participating countries to consider how
best to evaluate and improve their educational systems to ensure that their students are well
prepared and competent. Consequently, the need for effective educational evaluation systems
and methods is an important issue, one that is frequently studied and discussed in East Asian
countries.
However, the development of an effective evaluation system is not a simple task. Many
factors need to be considered.
Aside from measurement techniques and methodological perspectives, an effective
system needs to be cognizant of the cultural, political, economic and social contexts in which
an evaluation system is implemented. Consideration of such contexts is critical in East Asia
for one simple reason – education is highly valued in our society due to its traditional
Confucian culture.
All high-stakes educational evaluations, such as senior high school entrance
examinations, college entrance examinations and teacher qualification examinations, as well
as school performance evaluations, often receive a great deal of public attention and scrutiny.
Any official evaluation system, in terms of its contents, standards, and implementation
procedures, may set the guidelines for teaching and student learning; schools tend to operate
on the basis of, teachers tend to teach and students are likely to learn mainly what is to be
assessed and evaluated.
What is not tested or otherwise judged or assessed for “official” purposes usually gets
less attention or is simply ignored. Thus, implementing a national evaluation system that is
objective and fair without having any negative impact on schooling is a major challenge in
most places in East Asia. Scholars in the field of educational evaluation are actively engaged
in the search for an Asian model that will work well within all East Asian social and cultural
contexts.
East Asian countries serve as an ideal testing ground for judging the effectiveness of
various evaluation models and programs because they share many things in common. Aside
from the high value placed on positive attitudes toward education, educational governance at
the systems level tends to be centralized and controlled by the central government. Given the
similar cultural and social contexts, educators may be able to identify theories and practices
Introduction 3
that are most suitable for their students and educational systems by comparing the different
evaluation systems or programs developed by other countries or special administrative
regions.
It was for this reason that the “Forum for Educational Evaluation in East Asia: Emerging
Issues and Challenges” was initiated and held on October 2007 at National Taiwan Normal
University.
It brought together a group of distinguished scholars from Hong Kong SAR (China),
Japan, Macao SAR (China), Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand for
scholarly discussion of the problem of developing, implementing and improving educational
evaluation systems that are sensitive to the local cultures and social contexts. The breadth of
issues discussed, free and open expression of ideas and opinions, and general sense of the
success of this forum prompted the idea of publishing the presented papers in order to share
the participants’ knowledge, ideas and experience with those who did not have an opportunity
to participate directly in the forum.
This book was therefore developed with the intention of providing a foundation for
further discussion of educational evaluation models within the context of East Asian cultural
and social conditions. It aims not only at identifying challenges of and strategies for
educational evaluation but also at facilitating advanced research on educational evaluation in
East Asia.
Through an examination of the current principles, policies and practices of educational
evaluation in this region, researchers will hopefully be able to further construct and refine
evaluation theories and models rooted in the traditional cultures and educational values of
East Asia.
Of course, it is hoped that such theories and models will also be applicable to other
regions of the world.
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

We have divided this book into two parts. Part I includes five case reports that center on
the current status of educational evaluation programs and policies in Hong Kong SAR
(China), Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. Specific policies, implementation
procedures and the recent or ongoing development of educational evaluation programs are
explored.
In Part II, variations in educational evaluation policies and practices in the region are
highlighted with chapters drawing on case studies of changes and strategies of educational
evaluation in Hong Kong SAR (China), Japan, Macao SAR (China), Malaysia and Thailand.
By providing case studies of the principles and practices of educational evaluation systems,
the authors identify the current innovations, as well as challenges, associated with significant
issues concerning the organization, management and implementation of educational
evaluation in East Asia.
The range of topics covered in the various chapters is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Topics covered by each author
Topical area M.L. R.S. S.B. S.K. C.L. S.P. S.Y. W.Y. P.S. K.C.
Evaluation policies ©
Evaluation of educational © © © © ©
progress
Evaluation of basic education © ©
Evaluation of the learning of © ©
reading, science and
mathematics
Evaluation of K-12 teachers © © ©
Evaluation of K-12 schools © © © © © ©
Evaluation of higher ©
educational institutions
Evaluation of academic © ©
programs
Evaluation of college © ©
candidates
Evaluation methods © ©
Note: M.L. -- Mu-lin Lu; R.S. -- Ramanathan Subramaniam; S.B. -- Sun-Geun Baek; S.K. -- Sirichai
Kanjanawasee; C.L. -- Chi-Kin John Lee; S.P. – Nicholas Sun-Keung Pang; S.Y. – Suan Yoong;
W.Y. – Washiyama Yasuhiko; P.S. – Pruet Siribanpitak; K.C. – Kwok-cheung Cheung.
CHAPTER SYNOPSIS
1. Evaluation of Higher Education
Mu-lin Lu, in the first of the case reports, focuses on the connection between higher
education evaluation systems and the trend towards globalization. In Taiwan, under the
revised University Act promulgated in 2005, the Minister of Education (MOE) took
responsibility for organizing an evaluation committee and formulating evaluation policies and
guidelines. Subsequently, in December 2005, the MOE and Taiwan’s universities and
colleges jointly established the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of
Taiwan (HEEACT). Subsidized annually by the MOE, HEEACT is responsible for the
general operation and administration of university evaluation, and is expected to safeguard
the objectivity and accuracy of evaluations: the government’s financial support and the
enrollment size of each institution are directly dependent on these evaluations. The MOE also
expects the implementation of a systematic evaluation mechanism to lead universities toward
greater autonomy and management efficiency. However, as a newly-founded public
organization HEEACT confronts several technical problems, including the shortage of
professional evaluators, the dependence on governmental funding, and the lack of consensus
regarding evaluation indicators and methods and procedures for implementing evaluation.
These challenges have made the goal of achieving fairness and objectivity in evaluation more
difficult to accomplish. Dr. Lu argues that setting up a long-term evaluation mechanism to
Introduction 5
monitor the performance of universities is needed in order to assure teaching and learning
quality, but also that universities still need time to accommodate and assimilate the “culture
of evaluation.”
2. Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Learning
Ramanathan Subramaniam focuses on educational evaluation in two areas: the learning

of science and mathematics and the institutional evaluation of schools. He reports that
Singapore places tremendous emphasis on the development of its human resources through
education and its evaluation, which is necessary for improvement and innovation, because of
the lack of indigenous natural resources. He also explains why the science and mathematics
curricula in Singapore continue to set a very high standard. Dr. Subramaniam starts with the
current status of and future challenges confronting educational evaluation in Singapore. He
argues that reliance on centralized testing by an independent agency at the end of the last year
of primary school, and the collaboration of this agency with an international examinations
syndicate for the examinations coming at the end of junior and senior high school, have been
major reasons why Singapore’s educational system is international in its practices and
standards. However, he also points out that the present system of evaluation of science and
mathematics learning, though now very efficient, may have to be fine-tuned in the future. For
example, it may require such reforms as the use of 2-tier multiple choice questions, which
overcome the problem of random guessing of correct answers by asking students to justify
their answers on another level, i.e. from another choice of options (Tregust, 1988).
3. Evaluation for School Improvement
Sun-Geun Baek describes the extent to which educational evaluation has been used as
one of the main tools for the development and improvement of primary, secondary and higher
education in South Korea. He refers to five educational evaluation programs in South Korea:
• the School Activities Records (SAR);

• the National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA);
• the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT);
• the Teacher Competence Development Evaluation (TCDE);
• the Teacher Education Institute Accreditation System (TEIAS).
Baek points out that there have been ongoing conflicts among stakeholders on
educational evaluation policies in Korea. For example, one of the teacher unions is strongly
against the implementation of TCDE. Some teacher educators and institutes are against the
implementation of TEIAS; furthermore, some teachers and professors disagree with changes
in the educational evaluation system, and they also disagree with the implementation of the
competition system. Nevertheless, Baek asserts that the future prospects of education in South
Korea will be bright because Koreans not only acknowledge the importance of education but
also are making substantial investments in education in order to build a powerful state.
4. Evaluation for Quality Assurance
Sirichai Kanjanawasee presents Thailand’s evaluation practices in relation to curriculum

reform and quality assurance issues in that country. Based on the 1999 National Education
Act, the establishment of educational standards, curricular revision and quality assurance are
all part of the educational reform program. Kanjanawasee has introduced four levels of basic
education in Thailand, and has indicated the need for effective in-service teacher training and
for prototypes for integrated reading, thinking and writing assessment tools and procedure
manuals. The national education policy should guarantee high-quality management by linking
external and internal quality assurance mechanisms. In addition, there are challenges facing
the development of the O-NET (Ordinary National Educational Test), which embodies
content standards for different school curricula, as well as the A-NET (Advanced National
Educational Tests), which are correlated with well-defined professional disciplines.
Kanjanawasee also points out that much further research is needed in order to support system
designs that are both meaningful and fair for all concerned.
5. Evaluation for Mixed Purposes and Educational Reform
John Chi-Kin Lee emphasizes the problem of keeping the right balance between
decentralization and accountability of educational evaluation, and invites readers to think of
evaluation as being essentially an “accompaniment” rather than a “monitoring” device. Lee’s
chapter provides a brief overview of current educational evaluation measures and issues in
Hong Kong. With regard to such quality assurance mechanisms as school self-evaluation
(SSE), external school review (ESR) and Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA), he leaves
three questions open for discussion. First, how can we maximize the coherence, in both
rhetoric and practice, between and among educational reform, educational supervision and
evaluation policies? Second, how can we promote a systematic linkage between centralized
and localized systems so as to drive effective school improvement and teacher development?
Third, how can teachers’ workloads be reduced and teachers be relieved of their anxieties
regarding educational evaluation, and how can we foster a harmonious educational-evaluation
“community” of government agencies and teachers?
6. School Self-Evaluation
Part II of the volume contains five studies of recent innovations in educational evaluation
in East Asia. Nicholas Sun-Keung Pang introduces the details of a series of school-university
partnership projects on school self-evaluation in Hong Kong SAR. He also reports on an
ongoing investigation into the effectiveness of implementing self-evaluation in Hong Kong
schools and the factors that have hindered and /or facilitated this self-evaluation movement.
Pang suggests that there are two approaches to assuring the quality of education in Hong
Kong: an external mechanism via inspection and an internal framework via self-evaluation.
He concludes that, in order to facilitate change in schools, administrators should have the
power and leadership capacity to unify a given school’s goals and specify the technology for
achieving them, to promote consensus and the sharing of values among all members, and to
Introduction 7
focus attention by carefully selecting targets, controlling resources, and acting forcefully.
Pang further suggests that effective leaders are those who can be flexible in adopting
approaches to change that can cope with the challenges created by the ever-changing external
environment, and in leading their organizations toward excellence.
7. Evaluation of Educational Progress
Suan Yoong provides a critical review of the student assessment system currently used in
Malaysia. Professor Yoong outlines the effects of the national assessment system, provides an
overview of the strengths and weakness of an over-obsession with examinations, and explains
the dominant forces shaping educational assessments in Malaysia, carefully taking into
account the cultural contexts. In presenting the challenges faced by the implementation of
school-based assessment (SBA) in Malaysia, Yoong points out that the examination-oriented
tradition imposes a great pressure on schools as well as students to excel on examinations.
Such pressure has led schools to attempt to control what students are to study, narrowing the
school curriculum to include only those subjects and topics that are expected to be tested on
exams and adopting policies that are geared solely toward helping students pass the high-
stakes examinations. He introduces the serious problems that have arisen from this narrow-
minded approach, including the failure to measure higher cognitive skills, the de-
professionalization of teachers and the taking of all the fun out of going to school. Yet Yoong
also expresses concern that the Ministry of Education’s latest effort in examination system
reform might find it difficult to overcome Malaysia’s deeply entrenched, examination-
oriented culture, a culture that places the gaining of high test scores as the top priority of
teaching and learning.
8. Evaluation of School Performance
The chapter by Yasuhiko Washiyama deals with the notion of “autonomous school
administration” in Japan and that country’s subsequent evaluation practices in response to the
neoliberal ideas of deregulation and decentralization. Initially, Washiyama provides an
historical overview of the school evaluation system in Japan. In the contexts of deregulation
and decentralization, two evaluation-related policies have been developed: the Regulative
Standards for School Establishment, revised in 2002, include new provisions on self-
inspection and self-assessment; the Basic Policy of Economic Financial Administration and
Structural Reform of 2005 mandates that all schools providing compulsory education be
subjected to external evaluation. Professor Washiyama then introduces the Evaluation
Guidelines for Schools of Compulsory Education. The purpose of these guidelines is to
establish a Plan-Do-Check- Action management cycle for evaluation, to improve the quality
of education, to provide for self-evaluation and external evaluation, and to create a more open
school atmosphere. These guidelines cover the transition from the traditional quality control
system to a system focusing on outcomes, various criteria for evaluation, more focused
evaluations, and the establishment of a third-party evaluation organization. He also raises
concerns about school evaluation, including the problem of a too-heavy evaluation workload
for teachers and the fact that evaluation may become a form of routine paper work.
Washiyama argues that these problems could be solved by the implementation of shadowing,
the transition from school evaluation to school diagnosis, and the facilitation of collaboration
among teachers. He further emphasizes that evaluation results must be communicated to
teachers, students, parents and community members as favorable forces for improvement.
9. Evaluation of Teacher Performance
Pruet Siribapitak first describes the number and qualifications of teachers in Thailand. He
then discusses current issues in teacher evaluation, and explores the future prospects of
teacher evaluation in that country’s public schools. Siribapitak discusses the various types of
teacher evaluation for public school teachers, including induction program evaluation, annual
performance evaluation, and academic status evaluation. He also points out that the Teacher
Civil Service Commission of the Ministry of Education had set up a taskforce to review the
teacher evaluation criteria in terms of three new dimensions: teacher discipline, morality and
ethical conduct; the quality of teaching and student development; and the results of teaching
and student development. Professor Siribapitak concludes that it might be more productive to
design systems, not for their formative or summative orientations but in terms of the decisions
that need to be made at different levels, e.g. by teacher, the principal, the school district, and
the MOE.
10. Evaluation of Student Achievement
In the final chapter, Kwok-Cheung Cheung offers an insightful analysis of educational

evaluation and learning improvement in Macao. He first states that Macao’s educational
system is characterized by a majority of privately-operated schools, and that the schools enjoy
full administrative autonomy and complete freedom of instruction. Thus, there is not yet any
form of external evaluation from kindergarten up to the terminal senior secondary level. The
general public basically does not have a clear understanding of the educational achievement
of schools, and educational evaluation is an area gravely in need of further scrutiny.
PISA (the Program for International Student Assessment) was adopted as a flagship
research program conducted by the Educational Testing and Assessment Research Centre
(ETARC) of the University of Macau. Professor Cheung claims that PISA “serves as a
catalyst for capacity building for educational evaluation in Macao.” There are five
benchmarks:
• Overall performance of the 15-year-olds in reading, mathematical and scientific

literacy;
• Equity in the distribution of learning opportunities as measured by the impact of
social, cultural and economic status of the home on literacy performance;
• Consistency of literacy performance standards across schools;
• Differential gender differences demonstrated in reading as well as in mathematical
and scientific literacy;
Introduction 9
• Learning environments that can facilitate the life-long learning goals of 15-year-olds.
Macao’s PISA then exemplifies a unique and effective international evaluation
program
PERSISTING CHALLENGES AND CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE

TO POSITIVE CHANGES
In short, the authors of the essays in this book provide comprehensive information about
their countries’ evaluation systems, programs and policies at various educational levels, and
show how these are responding—or trying to respond—to the unique needs of their specific
educational contexts. They also point out that there are still many problems to be solved.
First of all, the evaluation of student achievement for the purpose of allowing entrance to
higher levels of education, including senior high schools and colleges and universities,
remains a challenge. Unlike the United States, most East Asian countries have a centralized
system that requires students entering senior high schools and colleges and universities to
take a national examination. Admissions are solely based on students' performance on a test
which covers only selected subjects. “As a result, students tend to pay less attention to
learning in classrooms and concentrate more on private tutorials in particular subjects tested
in the entrance examination” (Kanjanawasee, p. 75). Such a system often hampers the normal
developmental process of a pre-college education. Many individuals’ true potential cannot be
fully expressed and developed because of the lack of opportunities and appropriate evaluation
mechanisms. Thus, how to screen and identify studetns’ talents and abilities, and how to
assure the high quality of education deserved by these students, remain serious questions.
Thailand’s new program, which requires the use of high school grades and students’
performance outside of school, offers an alternative model for college admission practices.
However, its success remains to be tested.
The second challenge is how to evaluate teacher quality and performance in the context
of fundamental educational reform. In particular, it remains hard to determine which
characteristics of teachers are critical for effective teaching and other professional duties.
From the perspective of East Asia’s Confucian heritage, a teacher should be able to fulfill
three missions: cultivating a virtuous person, teaching life skills, and removing students’
doubts. This implies that teachers will not only need professional skills for effective teaching:
they must also be able to serve as good role models for their students. In this age of
specialization and professionalism, the traditional image of a teacher-saint has gradually
faded away. Rather, there is a call for teacher-scholars who, as in China and Japan, are
expected to do original research as well as teach effectively. Things have become more
complicated in an era when more and more educators seem to view their students as mere
“consumers.” Is it possible to talk about professional ethics when the pedagogical relationship
has become a pedagogical contract that places more emphasis on responsibilities and rights
than on the potential development of individuals? There may be two ways to approach the
problem of teacher evaluation in our current society. One is normative, and seeks to define a
qualified, professional teacher. The other is technical, and seeks to evaluate teachers to see if
they are qualified and professional. Of course, we must have the definition or the standard
before we can have evaluation. Thailand’s teacher evaluation program includes the evaluation
of teachers’ ethics and moral behavior, and this approach is worthy of the consideration of
other East Asian educators.
Moreover, a national evaluation program needs to evaluate both for accountability and
for innovation (summative and formative evaluation). Yet can we really rank schools and
colleges only for the sake of accountability? And how can we lower the pressure placed on
students competing for the best schools and colleges based solely on achievement test scores?
And should qualitative evaluation be used, in order to improve both instruction and learning,
rather than or together with the giving of merely quantitative ranks and grades? These are
some of the several key issues that still need to be resolved.
Finally, as shown in some of the essays in this book, successful implementation of
educational evaluation measures necessitates supportive school leadership (Chapter 6),
reduction of teacher anxieties and workloads (Chapter 5), enhanced communication among
stakeholders (Chapter 8), and the fostering of shared decision-making across all levels,
including government, school, parents and the community (Chapters 5 and 9). But to achieve
these prerequisite goals will take the collective wisdom of scholars in the field of educational
evaluation.
In conclusion, evaluation is an integral part of the educational reform and innovation
process. Assessment has the potential to act as a driving force for achieving educational
excellence, but it must be carefully designed and implemented. Inappropriately designed
educational evaluation programs or systems—those which cannot fit their contexts—may
have a negative impact that could be very harmful to education. For example, in many East
Asian countries where high-stakes examinations are prevalent, most students cram for exams
and are good at taking tests but they have little time to pursue their own personal
development, explore their talents, or reflect on the meaning of life. In other words, the
pursuit of high scores on tests becomes in itself the central theme or purpose of their life. Yet
as Lu in Chapter 1 points out, effective educational evaluation—with the ultimate goal of
reforming or improving the educational system—needs the cooperation of the whole
community: the parents (and larger public), students, teachers, school administrators and
government officials. It will be above all this common or communal will that can take us to
where we want to be.
REFERENCES
De Grauwe, A. and Naidoo, J. P. (eds.). (2004). School evaluation for quality improvement:
An ANTRIEP report. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.
Kennedy, K. J. and Lee, J. C. K. (2008). The changing roles of schools in Asian societies:
Schools for the knowledge society. London and New York: Routledge.
PART I. PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES
Chapter 1
EDUCATION EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

IN TAIWAN: STATUS, INNOVATIONS
AND CHALLENGES
Mu-lin Lu
Ministry of Education, Taiwan, ROC
I. PREFACE
Today, in the 21st century - the age of knowledge economy - a country’s competitiveness
is measured by its ability to apply knowledge towards economic progress and the pursuit of
excellence. In this light, higher education is regarded as the means to cultivating a nation’s
high caliber workforce. As such, governments worldwide are performing evaluations of
universities to ensure high quality within institutions of higher education, as well as to
measure administrative performance and to determine how to allocate funding and resources.
The number of Taiwan’s higher education institutions has expanded rapidly over the past
decade, more than 70% of Taiwan’s high school and vocational school graduates advance to
college or university. Therefore, the importance of controlling and safeguarding the quality of
higher education continues to grow. Establishing and implementing an evaluation system is
essential for improving the quality of university education. To this end, the Ministry of
Education (MOE) authorized the independent Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation
Association in 2004 to conduct evaluations of all universities in Taiwan. These evaluations
focused primarily on university administration and secondly on academic disciplines, with the
universities evaluated in groups. The evaluation results were announced as ratings. This
round of evaluations motivated universities and colleges to make a greater effort toward self-
improvement, and it also triggered new thinking regarding the development of university
evaluations in Taiwan. Based on the experiences of advanced countries, the MOE established
the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) in
December 2005 to serve as an independent, dedicated agency handling all matters relating to
the evaluation and assessment of higher education institutions. The goal of establishing of
HEEACT aimed to make it easier to share evaluation experiences, accumulate data, develop
14 Mu-lin Lu
professional and objective evaluation criteria, train professional evaluators, and build a talent
pool and database. In the following, we explain the historical development of Taiwan’s
university evaluation system, its future development and current challenges.
II. STATUS
A. Legal Basis – The University Act: The MOE’s Responsiblities
in Evaluating Universities
The revised University Act was promulgated in December 2005. Article 5, Paragraph 1,
of the Act states that “Universities shall regularly carry out self-evaluations of teaching,
research, services, academic affairs, administration, student participation and other
proceedings; regulations for evaluations shall be formulated by the universities.” Article 5,
Paragraph 2 stipulates that “In order to promote the development of universities, the Ministry
of Education shall organize an Evaluation Committee, commission academic organizations or
professional evaluators to carry out regular evaluation on the universities, and publish the
results as a reference for educational subsidies from the government and the scale of
adjustment and development of universities; the methods of evaluation shall be formulated by
the Ministry of Education.” These two passages clearly stipulate that carrying out university
evaluations is the joint responsibility of the MOE and the universities. We can only attain the
goal of improving the quality of higher education if the two parties work together in a
concerted effort to plan and promote university evaluations with a sense of direction.
B. Developing a Higher Education Evaluation Agency Suitable for Taiwan
1. The Establishment of Higher Education Evaluation Agencies

a. Foreign Aapproaches. Evaluation agencies in other countries can be divided into three
categories: “official” organizations such as in France; institutions that are independent from
government agencies such as in Britain and Australia; and private-sector organizations such
as in the United States. These three types of agencies share in common an emphasis on
safeguarding objectivity and fairness, and thus their goal is to create and maintain impartial
and unbiased institutions for performing professional evaluations. Their sources of funding
can be roughly divided into government subsidies (Britain and France), membership fees
(U.S.) and a combination of government subsidies and membership fees (Netherlands,
Australia). In terms of function, these organizations carry out both institutional evaluations
and academic discipline evaluations (also called specialized field evaluations). Depending on
their focus, academic discipline evaluations can again be further divided into teaching
evaluations and research evaluations.
b. Taiwan’s Approach. Taiwan lacked an evaluation mechanism and a dedicated
evaluation agency until only recently, when the Ministry of the Interior approved the
establishment of the Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association (TWAEA) in August
2003. TWAEA is a private-sector agency that has carried various evaluation work on behalf
of the MOE: These projects included the University Evaluation Planning and Implementation
Education Evaluation and Assessment in Taiwan 15
Plan of 2004, the University and College Faculty Development Center Evaluation Planning
and Implementation Plan of 2005, the Evaluation of Universities of Science and Technology
of 2005 and 2006, and the University Administration Follow-up Evaluation Plan of 2006.
In addition, the MOE and Taiwan’s universities and colleges came together in December
2005 to jointly establish the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of
Taiwan (HEEACT), a public organization with the goal of serving in a capacity similar to the
evaluation agencies of Britain and Australia, that are known for their “independence from
official agencies.” However, as a sound evaluation institution cannot be created overnight, the
MOE is currently supervising and assisting HEEACT to ensure that its development proceeds
smoothly and efficiently. Presently, the MOE subsidizes funding that HEEACT requires for
planning and evaluations, as it gradually works to establish a systematized, institutionalized
dedicated agency for university evaluation.
2. Stage-by-Stage Establishment of a Higher Education Evaluation System
a. Present Goals. Present goals for HEEACT include: to have HEEACT plan and
implement all types of evaluation work so as to accumulate practical experience; to compile
and study information on higher education evaluation in advanced countries, produce
objective, professional evaluation criteria, and provide courses for the training of university
evaluators; to develop the council into an evaluation planning institution; and to set up a
diversified evaluation mechanism.
b. Medium-to-Long Term Goals. Medium to long-term goals for HEEACT include: to
gradually develop the Council into a dedicated, professional evaluation institution with the
task of researching and planning the evaluation of Taiwan’s universities; to set up databases
and talent pools; and to pass on these evaluations to other specialized evaluation institutions.
3. Present University Evaluations Conduct
a. Putting into Practice University Self Evaluation. The University Act stipulates that
universities shall regularly conduct self evaluations. Moreover for the sake of sustainable
development, universities shall safeguard the quality of their administrative affairs and
assume responsibility for administrative performance and improving their image and
reputation.
b. Assisting TEEAC in Implementing University Evaluation Work. Current Major Tasks:
i. Planning and researching Taiwan’s university evaluation system.

ii. Compiling and studying information on the evaluation of universities overseas.
iii. Assisting universities in applying for international accreditation in all academic
disciplines.
iv. Developing and establishing qualification criteria for domestic and foreign
professional evaluation institutions.
v. Establishing talent pools and databases for the evaluation of universities in Taiwan.
vi. Providing courses for the training of university evaluators.
vii. Other evaluation-related matters.
c. Implementing the University Department and Graduate School Evaluation Plan (2006-
2010) based on a Five-Year Cycle
i. Goals of university department and graduate school evaluation

16 Mu-lin Lu
a. To gain an understanding of the current quality of university departments and

graduate schools
b. To determine and recommend status and deadlines for the quality accreditation of
university departments and graduate schools.
c. To encourage universities to establish quality improvement mechanisms for their
departments and graduate schools.
d. To assist university departments and graduate schools in developing unique
characteristics and the pursuit of excellence.
e. To use evaluation results as reference in formulating higher education policies for
the government
ii. Unique features of university department and graduate school evaluations
a. Characteristic differences of university departments and graduate schools are

respected; fixed quantitative indicators are not used
b. University departments and graduate schools must explain on their own initiative
to what extent they have progressed in fulfilling their founding mission and goals,
in line with evaluation criteria.
c. Evaluation content focuses on the assurance of teaching quality, but also pays
attention to research quality.
d. Evaluation process emphasizes that university departments and graduate schools
should establish and implement self improvement mechanisms.
e. Criteria-based self comparison is emphasized, rather than comparison with other
universities or university departments and graduate schools.
f. Evaluation results are reflected in an accreditation system, consisting of three
categories: accreditation granted, accreditation on hold, and accreditation denied.
Applicants that do not meet the criteria shall withdraw. Those whose
accreditations that are on hold or have been denied shall accept a follow-up
evaluation in the following year.
iii. Items covered in university department and graduate school evaluations
Criteria 1: Goals, special characteristics and self improvement

Criteria 2: Course design and teaching
Criteria 3: Student learning and student affairs
Criteria 4: Research and professional performance
Criteria 5: Graduate performance
iv. Dealing with evaluation results:
Accreditations for university departments and graduate schools that are put “on hold”
mainly for the following reasons: insufficient number of full-time teachers; insufficient
learning space and resources; unclear goals; or course design does not reflect the goals of the
university department/graduate school and lacks self improvement mechanisms.
Accreditations are denied if the above-mentioned problems are severe enough that student
learning and teaching quality are seriously affected. University departments and graduate
schools whose accreditations have been granted shall submit a self improvement plan and
implementation objectives based on the suggestions in the evaluation result report. They will
not have to undergo another evaluation for the following five years. For those whose
accreditations have been put on hold, HEEACT will conduct a follow-up evaluation regarding
their shortcomings. Meanwhile, schools ‘on hold’ may not expand student recruitment or
apply for the establishment of new graduate schools. For those whose accreditations have
been denied, HEEACT will carry out a reevaluation of all items and the MOE will consider a
reduction of student quotas. Should accreditation be denied after a follow-up evaluation or a
reevaluation, student recruitment will be stopped.
4. Continuing with follow-up evaluations of university administrations
5. Encouraging universities to participate in international accreditation
As Taiwan’s universities seek to develop unique characteristics and reach global
standards, we cannot only use evaluations and assessments to strengthen the quality and
development direction of academic disciplines. Universities and colleges are being
encouraged to actively participate in international accreditation schemes as a way of obtaining
international recognition. University departments and graduate schools that have already
obtained international accreditation will be exempt from further evaluations during the
accreditation period. Participation in international accreditation schemes will raise the quality
of higher education and speed up the internationalization of universities in Taiwan, while also
winning them the recognition in international academia. Universities and colleges in Taiwan
currently participate in the following international accreditation schemes:
a. Medical school evaluation:
Since medicine is a specialized field, medicine department evaluations are planned and
conducted by the Taiwan Medical Accreditation Council (TMAC). In 2002, TMAC’s
evaluation system was approved by the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education
and Accreditation in the United States.
b. Engineering education accreditation:
In 2005, engineering education accreditation system and schemes established by the

Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan (IEET) were approved by the Washington Accord
(WA) signatories. Engineering departments that have gained IEET accreditation can directly
obtain WA recognition. Twelve engineering departments gained IEET accreditation in 2004,
followed by 35 departments in 2005, and 41 departments in 2006, which shows that Taiwan’s
engineering departments are actively participating in international accreditation.
c. Accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

(AACSB) in the United States:
The business management departments of Fu Jen Catholic University and National Sun
Yat-sen University gained AACSB accreditation in April 2005, while National Chengchi
University followed suit in December 2006. The business management departments of other
universities including Asia University, Feng Chia University, National Cheng Kung
University, National Chiao Tung University, National Chung Cheng University, National
18 Mu-lin Lu
Taiwan University, Tamkang University, and Yuan Ze University have applied for AACSB
accreditation.
III. INNOVATIVE ACTIONS

To truly achieve the goal of raising the quality of higher education, we must shed long-
held thinking and approaches to university evaluations, and bring in new energy to create new
possibilities for the future. In the following, we explain innovative actions being taken with
regard to the university evaluation system, the role of universities and the application of
evaluation results.
A. Creating a Well-Designed Evaluation System
Evaluation work in Taiwan needs to develop toward systematization and

institutionalization. We aim to create a well-rounded and sound evaluation system, building
upon every single evaluation process. In order to do this, we must establish a team of
evaluators and build a database, while properly integrating research, planning,
implementation and auditing. Article 4 of the Regulations Governing University Evaluations
stipulates that university administrations, departments and graduate schools, as well as course
curriculums shall be evaluated every five to seven years. By putting into practice such
evaluation work and building an evaluation system, we are bringing more effective
management to our universities.
B. Leading Universities Towards Greater Autonomy
Presently, Taiwan’s evaluation system is led by the government, with passive

participation from universities. However, as the evaluation system evolves and universities
mature with the evaluation process, we hope that all schools will understand the need for
long-term self improvement. We also hope that evaluation results released by a professional,
fair agency will serve as a reference for schools seeking to make improvements and develop
unique characteristics. As soon as this practice takes root and a dedicated evaluation agency is
able to function in its full capacity, we could consider establishing an evaluation system under
which universities proactively apply for evaluation.
C. Improving the Quality of University Management, Efficiently Allocating

Education Funding
In Britain, higher education evaluation covers the two areas: teaching and research. The
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is in charge of institutional and
teaching evaluations, while the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is mainly in charge of
evaluating research. Both agencies submit their evaluation results to the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which distributes grants and funding to higher
education institutions based on these results. While the establishment of a systematized
university evaluation system in Taiwan is still in the initial stages, we hope that the
implementation of university evaluations will compel universities to attach greater
importance to administrative performance. Moreover, the MOE will refer to evaluation results
when deciding on matters relating to university development including funding, grants, and
subsidies, the increases or changes to colleges, departments, graduate schools, and student
quotas. The MOE’s overall aim in this regard is to achieve more efficient use of higher
education resources, as well as their proper allocation.
IV. CHALLENGES
In comparison with many advanced countries, the implementation of a university
evaluation system in Taiwan is still in the initial stage. Numerous systemic or technical
problems still need to be solved. Eight major challenges facing Taiwan’s university
evaluation are listed below:
A. Training Professional Evaluators
Evaluators presently selected by the dedicated evaluation agency can be divided into
three categories based on the type of evaluation: 1. Veteran professors with research or
practical experience in higher education administration; 2. Business or industry
representatives familiar with specialized academic fields or university affairs; 3. Experts and
scholars specializing in certain specialized fields. TEEAC’s evaluators hold an abundance of
experience and knowledge in university administration or teaching in a specialized field.
However, as university evaluation is a highly specialized undertaking, we need to address
how the evaluation expertise of the evaluators can be raised through relevant courses,
seminars and workshops.
B. Increasing Evaluation Funding
In addition to TWAEA, which as a private-sector, nongovernmental organization, is

independently funded and operated, the MOE and 153 universities and colleges have donated
money to fund the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan
(HEEACT). Since the council is a public organization, the MOE is fully subsidizing its
operating costs during its initial stages. In the future, the MOE hopes that HEEACT will be
able to engage in its own funding and create other revenue once operations are running
smoothly and the entire system starts to take shape.
20 Mu-lin Lu
C. Designing Evaluation Indicators and Methods
One example of the effort to design evaluation indicators and methods are the evaluations
currently used for Taiwan’s university administrations, departments and graduate schools and
colleges of medicine, where evaluation results come in the form of suggestions for
improvement submitted by evaluators. This presents a new challenge to the schools and the
public, who are accustomed to thinking in quantitative terms and are likely to note that
evaluators evaluating different universities, departments and graduate schools are not the
same. Our next step is to convince the schools and the public of the completeness of these
indicators, the scientific soundness of the evaluation methods and the truth of the evaluation
results.
D. Implementing Self Evaluation
As the sanctuary of academia and high-level professional training, universities must

assume responsibility for their own administrative efficiency, their research performance and
social services. Moreover, universities should have a full understanding of their current
strengths and weaknesses, to be gained continued and random self evaluations. Given this
fact, universities can only achieve the goal of sustainable development if evaluations are
incorporated into their organizational culture. However, Taiwan currently lacks a strong
consensus regarding the essence and methods of university self evaluation. As a result,
universities in Taiwan remain passive about accepting evaluation models based on outside
performance requirements, which has not been helpful in their long-term development.
Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the revised University Act stipulates that “universities shall
regularly carry out self evaluation on teaching, research, services, academic affairs,
administration, student participation and other proceedings; regulations for the evaluation
shall be formulated by the universities.” In the spirit of this passage, the MOE will continue
to encourage universities to create regulations for self-evaluation and to regularly carry out
self-evaluations.
E. The Fairness of Evaluators
In choosing the members of an evaluation committee for the evaluation of a university

department or graduate school, HEEACT first submits a list of recommended evaluators to
the department or the graduate school that is to be evaluated. The department or graduate
school in question may reject committee members for any substantial reason. In principle, we
already meet the general public’s expectations for an open and transparent evaluation
procedure. Still, since Taiwan’s academic circles are rather small, it is difficult to completely
draw a line between professors teaching at a department or graduate school that is being
evaluated and the members of its evaluation committee. We still need to deliberate further on
how we can truly ensure fairness and objectivity, and avoid conflicts of interest, when
selecting evaluation committee members, as well as whether or not we need to bring in
foreign scholars and experts.
F. Procedure for Generating Evaluation Results
A number of universities in Taiwan began department and graduate school evaluations in

2006. The review process for the evaluation results was mainly divided into the following
three steps: committee members submit an evaluation report following an onsite visit, then
the Academic Discipline Preliminary Review Committee reviews the report, and lastly a
decision is made by the Accreditation Review Board (under the Council). If there are
excessive discrepancies between the “Onsite Visit Draft Report” that is sent to all institutions
under evaluation and the second-stage “Suggestions on Evaluation Results” submitted by the
Academic Discipline Preliminary Review Committee or the third-stage “Report on
Accreditation Results” by the Accreditation Review Board, the evaluated institutions will
easily question the fairness of the evaluation process and reject the results. Therefore, we
must consider how the procedure that generates the evaluation results can be designed with
even more precision so that the institutions undergoing evaluation are not shocked when they
obtain the results; that the evaluation results truly reflect the situation of the evaluated
institution; and that there are no large discrepancies between the results and the institution’s
situation during the onsite visit period.
G. Ways of Presenting the Evaluation Results
Evaluation results can be presented as rankings, ratings, or the selected best. In the case
of university administrations, and departments and graduate schools in Taiwan, the evaluation
results are announced in the form of ratings, which complies with the spirit of the
accreditation system. Furthermore, the criteria for deciding in favor or against accreditation
include whether relevant measures taken by the institutions match their stated goals and
whether they have implemented self improvement mechanisms. Feedback from the public
shows that people ask themselves why the MOE does not announce university rankings to
enable citizens to immediately clearly understand the strengths and weaknesses of each
university and to help students make their choices. In actuality, the announcement of the
evaluation results pertains to the goals and spirit of university evaluation. Therefore, there are
certain differences in the way evaluation results are announced, depending on the type of
evaluation and the evaluation goal. In the future, the MOE will hold more in-depth
discussions with the evaluating agency regarding the form in which evaluation results will be
announced.
H. Evaluation Follow-Up Mechanism
The focus of evaluations is not based on grade or rank, but rather to gain an
understanding of teaching quality and students’ learning performance in a systematic,
scientific, and objective way. Thus, a long-term evaluation mechanism must be established so
that the results of previous evaluations can serve as reference for monitoring a university’s
performance. Only then will universities be able to keep improving their shortcomings and
move toward excellence.
22 Mu-lin Lu
CONCLUSION
In light of the trend towards globalization and internationalization, Taiwan’s higher
education must be able to improve its quality, ensure performance, find its niche and develop
unique strengths to gain a sure footing on the international stage and move towards
excellence. University evaluation work plays a major role in this process. Our higher
education evaluation work will succeed only if it is systematically and scientifically planned,
implemented and reviewed. Moreover, we need to keep studying effective approaches used
by advanced nations to serve as lessons for us. We hope that Taiwan’s higher education
evaluation - with the assistance of an attentive public, active university participation, efficient
government action and a well-rounded evaluation system-will be able to help our universities
to achieve the vision of quality assurance and assume genuine responsibility for their
performance.
Chapter 2
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION IN SINGAPORE:

CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
R. Subramaniam
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
ABSTRACT
As an island state, which is bereft of any natural resources, Singapore places
tremendous emphasis on the development of its human resources through education. It
has consistently ensured that its curricula are not only internationally competitive but its
examination system is also benchmarked against international standards. Educational
evaluation is a critical aspect of this quality control. This article focuses on educational
evaluation in two areas: learning of science and mathematics at the primary, secondary
and pre-university levels, and institutional evaluation of schools. It is shown that the use
of external evaluation for assessing learning: centralized testing at the primary leaving
level by an independent authority, a partnership model of this independent authority with
an international examinations syndicate for testing at the secondary and pre-university
leaving levels, and regular testing of science and mathematics achievement of students at
the primary and secondary levels by an international evaluation association, have been
factors which explain why the science and mathematics curricula in Singapore continue
to be of a high standard. The use of academic attainment of students to band secondary
schools and junior colleges in separate achievement tables, plus the inclusion of other
academic and non-academic factors in these achievement tables is a key aspect of
institutional evaluation, and explains why stakeholders in the country have been able to
derive satisfaction from the government’s heavy investments in education. Some
implications of these modes of educational evaluation are discussed.
Keywords: educational; institutional evaluation; Singapore; science and mathematics

achievement; banding of schools.
24 R. Subramaniam
INTRODUCTION
Education is probably the most important lever to empower a person in life as well as
stimulate socio-economic development in a country. High levels of education of the citizenry
have traditionally been correlated with enhanced developmental activities in a country.
The challenges posed by globalization, new developments in science and technology,
diffusion of information and communication technology in society, outsourcing, off-shoring
and corporate downsizing have impacted tremendously on countries in the past ten years.
Jobs have taken flight to countries which can provide best value for money. Since these
developments affect the competitiveness of nations, they therefore impact not only on the
employment of their workers but also on their education system since this prepares students
for life in the workforce. Educational reform has been an important way in which many
countries have been addressing these issues to varying extents, so that their students are better
able to meet the challenge of the new economic landscape.
Science and technology are potent agents for stimulating socio-economic development.
The land-labor-capital model of economic development is a yesteryear paradigm that is
increasingly giving way to a model based on science- and technology- driven economic
development. The experiences of Western countries show that this development model has
been very helpful in providing their people with a good standard of living. A number of
countries in Asia have also successfully experimented with this model of economic
development for nation building, for example, Japan and Singapore (Tan and Subramaniam,
1998). One of the key aspects of this model is that a country’s science and mathematics
curricula need to be internationally competitive. Regular benchmarking of standards will help
to ensure that educational reform is proceeding in the right direction and that the education
system is well positioned for achieving the desired outcomes.
Educational evaluation is a powerful tool to assess various aspects of the education
process as it can produce performance data for the use of stakeholders. The origins of
educational evaluation can be traced to the desire for quality control in the education process
so that standards and accountability can be promoted. The large number of schools in a
country, the diversity in their curricula and differences in assessment procedures at various
levels pose issues of a systemic nature which, if not addressed properly, can affect standards.
Educational evaluation affords directions in this regard as it can help to benchmark schools
and subject offerings at the various levels, thus ensuring that they measure up to the desired
norms. The epistemological foundations of educational evaluation have matured well over the
past 40 years, and several evaluation instruments and methodologies are available to assess
the efficacy of various aspects of the education process. Its importance has led to the
formation of a number of professional bodies - for example, the International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), which has done yeoman service since its
inception in 1959. The findings of this association have appeared in international journals and
the media, and are highly regarded by the political establishment in several countries.
The principal objective of this paper is to share some insights into the process of
educational evaluation of science and mathematics learning at the primary, secondary and
pre-university levels in Singapore. An additional objective is to describe an evaluation
approach that has been used to appraise schools in the country. Whilst traditional modes of
educational evaluation are deeply embedded in the education system in Singapore, the use of
Educational Evaluation in Singapore 25
educational evaluation of learning via leaving level examinations administered by an

independent local authority or in conjunction with an international examinations syndicate
provides the best assurance of quality control and academic rigor. Institutional evaluation
must perforce be based predominantly on such results.
EDUCATION SYSTEM IN SINGAPORE

To better appreciate the context of the ensuing discussion, a brief description of the
education system in Singapore is given in this section (Lim and Tan, 1999). The medium of
instruction in schools is English, except for mother tongue languages.
Primary education is of six years duration. Students enter primary school at the age of
seven. The core subjects are English, science, mathematics and mother tongue – mathematics
is offered from the start but science is introduced only at the primary three level. At the end of
primary four, there is a national streaming examination (Caleon and Subramaniam, 2005).
Those who are channeled into EM1 and EM2 streams in Primary five are of above average
abilities compared to those in the EM3 stream. Students in EM1 stream can take an extra
subject (Higher Mother Tongue). However, from 2004, the EM3 stream was abolished. At the
end of primary six, students sit for the Primary School Leaving Examinations.
Based on the results of the Primary School Leaving Examinations, students are channeled
into one of three streams at the secondary level: Special / Express, Normal or Technical. Such
streaming allows students to learn at a pace that is best suited for their intellectual
capabilities. Students in the special / express streams take the Singapore-Cambridge General
Certificate of Education ‘Ordinary’ Level Examinations at the end of four years. Those in the
latter two streams take this at the end of five years – prior to this, they would have taken the
Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education ‘Normal’ Level Examinations at the
end of four years. The results of the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education
‘Ordinary’ Level Examinations determine how students progress further. Those with average
grades can opt for polytechnic education to attain a diploma in a vocational discipline; those
with weak grades can opt for technical education, which will equip them with a certificate in
a technical specialty; and those who do well can opt for pre-university education at one of the
junior colleges or a centralized institute – students enrolling in the former take the Singapore-
Cambridge General Certificate of Education ‘Advanced’ Level Examinations after two years
while those who enroll in the latter take these after three years.. Those with good grades in the
latter examinations can opt for university education to get a degree.
The Ministry of Education is the agency responsible for overseeing education matters in
the country. A particular source of strength is its implementation machinery, which ensures
that policy matters are effectively translated into practice in the 350+ schools in the country.
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

LEARNING AT THE PRIMARY LEVEL
The curricula for science and mathematics at the primary level are prescribed by the
Ministry of Education. At each level in the 6 years of education, individual schools
26 R. Subramaniam
administer their own examinations in all the subjects. Needless to say, there is bound to be
some variability in the standards and difficulty levels for the various subject examinations. It
is only at the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE), which is held towards the end of
primary six, that all students sit for the same examination in all the subjects and know where
they stand at the national level. The PSLE is administered by the Singapore Examinations and
Assessment Board (SEAB), the national independent agency for assessment and
examinations.
The PSLE is of a high standard for the following reasons:
(a) The range of questions set in the subject examinations encompasses the different
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, with significant emphasis being placed on the higher
levels. This is in view of the pronounced weightage given in the curricula on
promoting thinking skills and problem-solving skills among students.
(b) Even though the PSLE examination papers are not available in the public domain (as
students are not allowed to take back the papers), anecdotal evidence based on the
feedback provided by teachers and students as well as the attention occasionally
given to these in the media indicate that the questions are intellectually challenging.
(c) It is set by an independent authority, and there are rigorous quality checks on what
appears in the test papers.
Additional evidence that the science and mathematics standards at the primary level are
internationally competitive can be drawn from the results of the Trends in Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS), an examination set by the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) every four years. These examinations are taken
by students of many countries and afford a rigorous comparative benchmark of the science
and mathematics curricula of a country. The findings from the TIMSS study reveal the
following observations in relation to Singapore (Martin et al. 1997, Mullis et al. 1997; Toh et
al. 2006):
• In TIMSS 1995, primary three students from Singapore were ranked 2nd in
mathematics, while primary four students were ranked 1st in mathematics and 7th in
science
• In TIMSS 2003, primary four students from Singapore were ranked 1st in
mathematics and 1st in science.
Juxtaposing the observations made on the PSLE with the results of the TIMSS support
the assertion that the curricula and assessment practices for gauging learning in science and
mathematics at the primary level in Singapore are of a high standard.
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

LEARNING AT THE POST PRIMARY LEVELS
The post primary education system normally comprises 4 years of secondary education
and 2 years of pre-university education. At all levels, examinations are conducted by
individual schools and junior colleges on a semester basis. There is bound to be some
variability in the standards and difficulty levels of these examinations. However, the
milestone examinations taken at the end of secondary and pre-university education are
national examinations and, in effect, provide an evaluation of how well schools have prepared
their students in the various subjects. What is significant is that these leaving level
examinations are conducted jointly by two independent authorities: the Singapore
Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) and the University of Cambridge Local
Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), an international examinations syndicate. The external
checks and validity provided in this manner constitute a reliable endorsement of the standards
of the syllabus and curricula in the sciences and mathematics.
The involvement of UCLES in educational evaluation of students’ learning, based on the
syllabus prescribed by the Ministry of Education, offers a number of advantages:
• It is internationally recognized and has long years of experience in setting and

marking examination papers.
• The examinations set and marked by it provide assurance that the standards are
internationally benchmarked. (A few subject papers such as second language, are,
however, marked locally).
• Involving an external agency to set and mark the examination papers ensures
impartiality.
• Its co-branding of the leaving level examinations offers Singapore students
recognizable entry level qualifications if they are to apply for placement in overseas
schools or admission to foreign universities in the USA, UK, Australia and New
Zealand, four of the popular destinations for higher education.
Additional support for the international competitiveness of the science and mathematics
curricula at the secondary level is provided by data from the TIMSS studies done in 1995,
1997 and 2003. The findings are as follows for the Secondary two level:
• In TIMSS 1995, Singapore students were ranked 1st in science and 1st mathematics.
• In TIMSS 1999, Singapore students were ranked 2nd in science and 1st in
mathematics.
• In TIMSS 2003, Singapore students were ranked 1st in science and 1st in
mathematics.
Against the backdrop of the foregoing, it is clear that evaluation of science and
mathematics learning at the secondary and pre-university levels are rigorous from an
international standpoint.
INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION OF SCHOOLS IN SINGAPORE

Institutional evaluation is an integral aspect of the process of educational evaluation.
Stakeholders and the public would like to know how effective schools have been in preparing
students. A good evaluation system that cuts across all schools is indispensable from a
28 R. Subramaniam
national perspective as informed decisions can then be made on improvements to be made as

well as lessons to be drawn from best practices.
Since 1992, secondary schools and junior colleges in Singapore have been ranked on the
basis of the academic standing of their students at the Singapore-Cambridge General
Certificate of Education ‘Ordinary’ Level Examinations and Singapore-Cambridge General
Certificate of Education ‘Advanced’ Level Examinations respectively. This has proved to be
an effective tool, in effect producing a league table of schools and colleges to see where they
stand nationally (http://www.moe.edu.sg). As the ranking is on the basis of leaving level
examinations administered by SEAB and UCLES, they have the advantages of validity and
reliability. Since ranking was introduced, it has been noticed that standards in schools and
colleges have risen.
The evaluation for schools works in this way. For the Normal stream, a composite index
based on L1B4 is generated for each secondary school: average aggregate score of English
(L1) plus the best four subjects taken by their students in the GCE ‘O” level examinations.
Using the cut-off score of 21, the schools are distributed into 5 bands. For the Special
/Express streams, a composite index (L1B5) weighted on the average aggregate scores of
either English Language or Higher Mother Tongue (L1) plus the five best subjects taken by
their students in the GCE ‘O” level examinations is assembled for each school. In this way, 9
bands below the cut off score of 18 points are generated. The lower the band score, the better
is the performance of the school. For the year 2007, there were 58 schools in Special /Express
stream as well as 51 schools in the Normal stream in the School Achievement Tables. The
other important factors which are included in the Achievement Tables include:
• Academic Value-added Performance: this is a measure of how well the schools are
expected to perform in the GCE ‘O’ Level examinations based on the PSLE results
of their students and how they actually performed.
• Physical and Aesthetic Achievement: the data for physical fitness is weighted on
three scores – percentage of students who pass the National Physical Fitness Award
test, percentage of overweight students, and fitness index.
• Best Practices: this focuses on effective practices and systems that lead to desirable
outcomes in education – for example, organizational effectiveness, students’ all-
round development, staff well-being, teaching and learning.
• Character Development: this is to reiterate the point that values education and life
skills are an integral aspect of students’ holistic education.
• National Education: this is to ensure that students are cognizant of Singapore’s
history and of how the country has achieved much despite the absence of natural
resources and the presence of other constraints.
A similar evaluation system holds at the pre-university level.

For institutional evaluation, data on leaving level examinations are available with the
Ministry of Education. Data on other aspects are obtained from schools via various means: for
example, self-reporting by schools, interviews and external evaluation by teams from the
Ministry of Education.
Data on rankings (or banding) of schools provide the necessary information for schools to
know where they stand with respect to others nationally and also provides the momentum for
them to improve their standings. The rankings done by the Ministry of Education have the
advantages that the evaluation criteria are transparent and rigorous.
DISCUSSION
Educational evaluation affords a systematic way of appraising the various processes in
education. If carried out by a competent authority, the information it provides can offer an
impartial perspective that would be of important value to stakeholders and the public. It
would, in effect, contribute towards certification of the quality of education.
In this chapter, we have focused on two aspects of educational evaluation: assessment of
science and mathematics learning at the primary, secondary and pre-university levels, and
evaluation of how schools meet their overall objectives.
In a country with numerous schools and where there are bound to be variations in the
standards and the difficulty levels of the examination papers set by these schools, a common
leaving examination provides the best mode of evaluating how schools have prepared their
students based on the syllabus prescribed by its Ministry of Education. This process of
centralized testing evens out any differences in standards, difficulty levels and anomalies in
content coverage that are inherently present in school-based examinations. This does not
mean that school-based examinations have their drawbacks, it is just that the common
denominator afforded by the same examination taken by all students provides more rigorous
benchmarking of learning. More importantly, it is of interest to stakeholders to know how
effective schools have been in their mission at a national level - a common mode of
referencing provided by centralized testing offers validity and reliability in this regard.
At the primary level, the examinations set by the SEAB, an independent agency, provides
not only quality assurance but also third party evaluation of how schools have prepared their
students for the examinations. Whist this mode of appraisal based only on the leaving level
(primary six) to evaluate learning may be criticized for the absence of consideration of the
results achieved by students at the other levels (primary one to five), it has to be borne in
mind that the PSLE is not just an examination to assess what students have learnt in primary
six but generally at the upper primary level (primary four to six) as well. That the
examinations set at the primary leaving level are of a high standard can also be gauged from
the fact that the national agency has been requested to provide testing services at the primary
leaving level for other countries in the region such as Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. On
an international basis, the TIMSS results provided by the International Association for the
Study of Educational Evaluation provide additional evidence that the science and
mathematics curricula in Singapore are internationally competitive.
At the secondary level, again a similar situation prevails – school-based examinations at
all stages except towards the end of secondary education, where a nationwide examination for
all subjects is taken. The examinations are administered jointly by SEAB and UCLES. The
involvement of a renowned international examinations syndicate in national examinations
provides strong support that international third party evaluation has its merits as it can ensure
that high standards are maintained and that the examination results are internationally
recognized.
30 R. Subramaniam
Additional support for the international competitiveness of the science and mathematics
curricula at the primary and secondary levels is provided by the results of the TIMSS
examinations administered by the International Association for the Study of Educational
Evaluation.
The situation at the pre-university level is also similar. Again, with the examinations
jointly administered by the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board and the
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, educational institutions know where
exactly they stand at the national level in terms of the academic achievements of their
students.
A major reason why many countries participate in TIMSS is that it provides data for the
evaluation of the effectiveness of their education system in science and mathematics, two
subjects that count significantly in the science- and technology- driven world of today, with
respect to those of other countries (Johnson, 1999). The testing is expensive and logistics-
intensive but the data they provide is impartial and can catalyze much needed educational
reform. Purves (1991, p34) has summarized this succinctly as follows: The world could be
conceived as a huge educational laboratory where different national practices lend
themselves to comparisons that could yield new insights into determinants of educational
outcomes. The significance given to IEA surveys of science and mathematics achievement
has led to a situation where rankings of countries have become a de-facto endorsement of
educational indices of these countries (Johnson, 1999), not only in the international research
literature but also in the popular media. Thus, the TIMSS results provide a solid endorsement
of the educational standards in science and mathematics at the primary and secondary levels
in Singapore.
The system of streaming in schools, in Singapore has been criticized as being elitist and
that it puts a stigma on those in the less desirable stream. It is a unique practice not found
elsewhere. Critics of streaming tend to ignore the fact that streaming ensures that students are
channeled into classes where they can study at a pace which suits their academic
predisposition. Teachers are then in a position to provide better attention and support for their
learning needs.
One of the criticisms leveled against the ranking system is that it places too much
emphasis on academic attainment. The process of education is more than just studying, it
needs to develop students holistically through other means and these ought to be given
weightage in the rankings – so say the critics! Also, as the premier schools get the better
students (Tan and Gopinathan, 2000), the ranking is skewed in their favor. Moreover, with
the excessive emphasis on examination results, schools may focus on producing examination-
smart students and not explore innovative approaches in their teaching. (Poh, 1999; Cheah,
1998). These concerns have led the Ministry of Education in 2004 to tweak the evaluation
system by expanding the number of dimensions on which assessment is based. Instead of
ranking lists, there are now School Achievement Tables, one for the Special / Express stream
and another for the Normal stream. In the process, schools are now banded together – those
with similar academic results are grouped together and are listed alphabetically, and it is not
possible for the public to know the exact position of the schools in the tables. In the new
evaluation system, predominant weightage is still given to the performance of the schools in
the leaving level examinations as this is central to the mission of education but additionally
other academic and non-academic factors are included in the achievement tables. This ensures
that schools prepare students holistically, not just academically. In the new landscape,
significant emphasis is given to the promotion of creativity, innovation and enterprise among
students (Tan and Subramaniam, 2002).
The high stakes examination culture has put additional pressure on teachers to deliver and
students to perform. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these may have implications on family
life – for example, teachers putting in longer working hours and students clocking lengthier
hours of study. There is, however, recognition that Singapore is unique – it is a small country
with no natural resources and its survival is very much dependent on its linkages to the global
economy and attracting of investments; education thus provides the best opportunity for its
people to aspire for a better life and compete in the global economy. In such a scenario, it is
inevitable that sacrifices have to be made. To a significant extent, the high salaries that
teachers draw help to mitigate any such concerns they may have. Another aspect of the high
stakes examination culture is the concern that late developers as well as those who are not
academically inclined but who excel in pursuits such as the arts and sports are at a
disadvantage. To address the former, multiple routes for entry to tertiary institutes are in place
– for example, a student who has been in EM 3 stream in primary school and normal
technical stream in secondary school can enter university after a stint in a technical institute
and then at a polytechnic, provided that admission criteria to the university are met. To help
meet the aspirations of the latter group of students, a School of the Arts as well as the
Singapore Sports School has been established. In fact, the arts and sports scene in Singapore
has undergone a renaissance in recent times, and job opportunities abound.
The Singapore experience offers the following pointers to other East Asian countries
which have less centralized system of education:
• Ranking (or banding) of schools needs to be seriously considered so as to inject

greater accountability in the system. Whilst there may be problems and constraints in
introducing this in less centralized systems where there are differing examination
systems, appropriate rubrics can be designed with suitable statistical normalizations
to account for these differences.
• A national leaving level examination can be considered for the graduating years of
schooling so that schools know how they have prepared their students.
• There needs to be pronounced emphasis on science and mathematics in the curricula
as these subjects are crucial for the economy.
FUTURE SCENARIOS
The 21st century presents new challenges to countries in various areas. No where is this
more pronounced than in the area of education as it has the potential to influence
developments in other sectors of the economy. Countries whose education systems are well
positioned to address the new challenges can ensure that their students would be able to
compete effectively in the new economy. Educational evaluation will thus continue to exert
importance as it affords scope for enhancing institutional practice so that schools can position
themselves for the future whilst evolving organically to the next level.
In Singapore, the present system of educational evaluation of science and mathematics
learning – use of national leaving examinations at the primary, secondary and pre-university
32 R. Subramaniam
levels, is not likely to change as it has served her well over the years. These are high stakes
testing that have proved their utility value over the years. The examinations set by an
independent authority at the primary leaving level affords third party validation of the quality
and rigor of the educational standards prescribed by the Ministry of Education for schools.
The links with UCLES at the post-primary levels are likely to be maintained as these have
served Singapore well over the past few decades.
In the author’s view, one aspect of testing that may be introduced in future examinations
to gauge learning is the use of 2-tier multiple choice questions. Currently, multiple choice
questions (MCQs) appear as part of most subject examinations at all leaving levels. The use
of MCQs has the advantage that it can test a good number of concepts across the curricula in
a limited time and also provides ease of administration and marking for teachers. One of the
disadvantages of MCQs is the probabilistic dimension inherent in its format. In an MCQ with
four options, the probability of getting the correct answer purely by guess work is 0.25. Also,
by a process of elimination of options by intelligent guessing, it is possible to narrow down
the answer to the correct option. A 2-tier MCQ addresses this significantly by asking students
to justify their answers from another choice of options (Treagust, 1988). An example of a 2-
tier MCQ is given here:
Question
Peter and Jane stand 300 meters apart in an open area where there are no buildings or
trees. They shouted ‘Hello’ to each other at the same time. Given that Jane’s voice has a
lower pitch compared to Peter’s and that there is no wind blowing, which one of the
following statements is true:
Answer
(a) Peter and Jane hear the word ‘Hello’ at the same time.
(b) Peter hears Jane’s voice first
(c) Jane hears Peter’s voice first
(d) None of the above
Reason
(i) Since Peter’s voice has a higher pitch, it travels faster and Jane thus hears him first.
(ii) A lower pitch sound carries less energy, and thus travels slower.
(iii) The speed of sound is not affected by the pitch, hence Peter and Jane will hear at the
same time.
(iv) ____________________________________________________________
(Write your reason here if you do not agree with any of the above reasons.)
Use of 2-tier MCQs would thus provide better indication of students’ understanding of a
concept tested in a question. The use of 2-tier MCQs, however, is not without their
drawbacks, notwithstanding its acknowledged superiority over traditional MCQs. For

example, the length of an examination paper will increase, considerable time and effort are
needed to formulate 2-tier MCQs, and teachers need to be given training in formulating this
kind of questions. To what extent this will impact on academic competencies of students is
not clear but obviously they need to have an enhanced level of functional understanding of a
topic. Lack or absence of testing instruments modeled on 2-tier MCQs in the various subject
areas is another drawback. All these can come in the way of the wider acceptance of 2-tier
MCQs in the examination system.
With the pervasiveness of ICT in Singapore – high Internet penetration rates, high home
PC ownership rates, broadband links in all schools and general cyber saviness of the younger
generation, the author feels that there is some scope for reducing teachers’ workload by
converting certain lessons into e-learning. This will allow students to take greater control of
their learning needs and further immerse them in a media that they are comfortable with.
Needless to say, this would have implications in the overall scheme of assessment.
In more recent years, the term action research has appeared in the lexicon of teachers.
Considerable encouragement is now given to teachers in schools in Singapore to engage in
action research as a way of reflecting on their teaching as well as improving the effectiveness
of various school programs. The reflective stance that action research provides as well as the
critical dimension that it affords to re-look at school practices and programmes has
implications on educational evaluation at the school level. In fact, Banfield and Cayago-
Gicain (2006) argue that action research is a ‘powerful and empowering approach to
educational evaluation” as it “has wide practical applicability from large scale evaluations
that span the entire organization, to more modest evaluation of single programmes”. The
infusion of action research in schools in Singapore is likely to lead to school-based
educational evaluation contributing further to improved outcomes in the education process.
CONCLUSION
Educational evaluation is a powerful approach to appraise various processes in the
education system. It can provide important information to stakeholders.
In this chapter, we have seen that the use of primary school leaving examinations
conducted by an independent agency that is not connected to schools or the Ministry of
Education provides the best form of educational evaluation of how schools prepare their
students. In the case of leaving level examinations at the secondary and pre-univeristy levels,
again the use of an international examinations syndicate in conjunction with an independent
local agency provides valuable information on how effective schools are in preparing their
students. Additionally, in the case of primary and secondary levels, the participation of
students in the TIMSS examinations provides supporting evidence that the curricula in the
science and mathematics in Singapore are internationally competitive. The high standing of
Singapore students in science and mathematics in the TIMSS examinations in 1995, 1999 and
2003 shows that students are prepared to international standards. Moreover, the system of
banding (previously ranking) of schools ensures that they are cognizant of the concepts of
accountability and stakeholder value.
34 R. Subramaniam
Singapore has consistently sought international benchmarks for its education system as it
provides the best assurance that the curricula and assessment are not only current but also
follow international norms
REFERENCES
Banfield, G. and Cayago-Gicain, S. (2006). Qualitative approaches to educational evaluation:
A regional conference workshop, International Journal of Education, 7(4), 510-513.
Caleon, I and Subramaniam, R. (2005). The impact of a cryogenics-based enrichment
programme on attitude towards science and learning of science concepts, International
Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 679-704.
Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literary innovation: The case
of Singapore, Language and Learning, 12, 192-209.
Johnson, S. (1999). International Association for the evaluation of educational achievement:
Science assessment in developing countries, Assessment in Education, 6(1), 57-73.
Lim, E. P. Y. and Tan, A. (1999). Educational assessment in Singapore, Assessment in
Education, 6(3), 391-404.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Beaton, A. E., Gonzales, E. J., Kelly, D. C. and Smith, T. A.
(1999). Science achievement in the primary school years: IEA’s third international
mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzales, E. J., Smith, T. A. and Kelly, D. C
(1997). Mathematics Achievement in the Primary School Years: IEA’s third international
mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Poh, S. H. (1999). Assessment issues in Singapore, Educational Evaluation: Issues and
Practice, 18, 31-32.
Purves, A. C. (1991). Brief history of International Evaluation Association. In W. A. Hayes
(Ed.), Activities Institutions and People, IEA Guidebook 1991, pp 34-48. The Hague:
IEA.
Tan, J. and Gopinathan, S. (2000). Education reform in Singapore: Towards greater creativity
and innovation, NIRA Review, 7, 5-10.
Tan, W. H. L. and Subramaniam, R. (1998). Developing countries need to popularise science,
New Scientist, 2139, 52.
Tan, W. H. L. and Subramaniam, R. (2002). Science and the student entrepreneur. Science,
298, 1556.
Toh K. A., Riley J. P., Lourdusamy A., Subramaniam R. (2006). School and science
achievement in Japan and Singapore: A tale of two cities. Educational Research for
Policy and Practice, 5, 1–13.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’
misconceptions in science, International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-170.
Chapter 3
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION IN SOUTH KOREA:

CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Sun-Geun Baek
Department of Education, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea
ABSTRACT
This paper describes five significant features of educational evaluation in South
Korea. The first feature is ‘the School Activities Records (SAR)’, which is designed to
evaluate primary, middle, and high school students based on academic achievements, as
well as the development of social behaviors. The second feature is ‘the National
Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA)’, which is to control the quality of the
nationwide educational system by providing information on the overall educational
achievement and where improvement might be needed. The third feature is ‘the College
Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT)’, which is administered at the national level to screen the
eligible candidates for higher education. The fourth feature is ‘the Teacher Competence
Development Evaluation (TCDE)’, which is designed to evaluate primary, middle, and
high school teachers based on their teaching skills and management abilities. The final
feature is ‘the Teacher Education Institute Accreditation System (TEIAS)’, which is
designed to evaluate and accredit each teacher education program and institute. In
conclusion, current issues and future prospects of educational evaluation in South Korea
will be discussed.
Keywords: SAR, NAEA, CSAT, TCDE, TEIAS.
I. INTRODUCTION
Located in the eastern part of the Asian Continent, South Korea is a democratic state and
a constitutional republic that holds a five-thousand year history. South Korea has 16
administrative units: The metropolis of Seoul, six metropolitan cities, and nine provinces.
South Korea has a population of around 48 million.
36 Sun-Geun Baek
Table 1. The Number of Schools, Teachers and Students in South Korea (2006)
Levels Schools Teachers Students

Kindergarten 8,290 32,096 545,812
Primary School 5,733 163,645 3,925,043
Middle School 2,999 106,919 2,075,311
High School 2,144 117,933 1,775,857
Junior College 152 11,857 817,994
College and University 201 54,967 2,368,169
Others 274 8,928 406,835
Grand Total 19,793 496,345 11,915,021
More than 10 million people live in Seoul, which is the country’s capital. For your
reference, the number of schools, teachers and students in South Korea are indicated in Table
1. In addition, the enrollment rates for primary, middle, and high schools have reached about
100 percent since 1994. The ratio of high school students, who go on to a higher stage of
education, reached 82.8 percent in 2007, which was the one of the highest ratios in the world
(KEDI, 2007).
In this paper, five significant features of educational evaluation in South Korea will be
described. In addition, current issues and future prospects of educational evaluation in South
Korea will be discussed at the end.
II. SCHOOL ACTIVITIES RECORDS (SAR)

The School Activities Records (SAR) is designed to evaluate primary, middle, and high
school students based on academic achievements, as well as the development of social
behaviors.
The Presidential Commission on Educational Reform announced on May 31, 1995 that
school teachers should construct his/her students’ SAR. The purpose of this evaluation system
was to get not only summative information, but also diagnostic and formative information of
students’ academic achievements, as well as the development of social behaviors. Although
there was a trivial revision in 2005, both the content and the format of the SAR are almost the
same as the old version. Eleven main categories’ names and their contents in the SAR are as
follows (MOE and HRD, 2007a):
(1) Personal Information: Student's name, gender, identification number, address, parent
names and their occupation, and special comments.
(2) Educational Background: Student's schooling (entrance, transfer, and graduation)
records, and special comments.
Educational Evaluation in South Korea 37
(3) School Attendance: Number of instructional days per year, number of absent days,
the reasons for absences (sickness, accident, and others), number of late days, the
reasons for lateness (sickness, accident, and others), number of absent classes, the
reasons for absences (sickness, accident, and others), and special comments.
(4) Awards: Prize name, level of prize, award date, and provider.
(5) Certificates: Type of certificate, registration number of certificate, registered date,
and provider.
(6) Career Guidance: Student's special talents and skills, interests, student's prospective
occupation, parent expectations, and special comments.
(7) School Optional Creative Courses: Areas of specific activities for optional creative
courses and comments.
(8) Extracurricular Activities: Class activities, school activities, club activities, group
activities, and general comments for each sub-category.
(9) Volunteer Work and Special Experiences: Contents, frequencies, places, and periods
of time for both volunteer work and special experiences.
(10) Academic Achievement:
− For primary school students: Special comments for each subject per year without
grade and rank, and special talents and interests.
− For middle school students: Raw score, five scale grade and rank for
each subject per semester, and special talents and interests.
− For high school students: Raw score and stanine score for each subject per
semester, and special talents and interests.
(11) Behavioral Characteristics and Comprehensive Comments: General comments on

behavioral characteristics and overall comments per year.
Each student's information on the SAR has been used to improve individual teaching-
learning processes. In addition, high schools have used each student’s information to select
their new students among middle school graduates. Colleges and universities have also used
each student’s information in SAR to select their new students among high school graduates.
Recently, the portion of each student’s information within total entrance examination scores
for higher education is gradually increased.
III. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (NAEA)
The National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA) is to control the quality

of the nationwide educational system by providing information on the overall educational
achievement and where improvements might be needed. The NAEA is administered generally
once in a year at the national level. The purposes of the NAEA are as follows (KICE, 2007):
(1) To diagnose the educational achievements of elementary, middle, and high school
students and to check systematically the trends of their achievements.
38 Sun-Geun Baek
(2) To provide basic reference data for improving the national curriculum by analyzing
the students' achievements of the goals of the national curriculum and checking the
problems of the national curriculum implementation at the school and classroom
levels.
(3) To improve teaching and learning methods and to produce data to set up a learning
encouragement policy by analyzing the test items and the relationship between the
students’ achievements and background variables.
(4) To improve student assessment methods in the schools by developing and utilizing
new and appropriate assessment tools.
(5) To explore new research designs and methods, in order to attain the purposes of the
study of the NAEA.
Until 1988, several educational research centers, such as the Korean Educational
Development Institute (KEDI) or the Central Educational Research Center had intermittent
conduct with the NAEA.
However, the National Board of Educational Evaluation had regular conduct with the
NAEA from 1989 to 1997. Since 1998, the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation
(KICE), which was established as a government funded educational research and testing
center on January 1 in 1998, has had annual conduct with the NAEA. The general procedures
for the NAEA are as follows (KICE, 2007):
(1) KICE sets up the basic policy for the NAEA.

(2) KICE works out the basic action plan.
(3) KICE develops the test items with primary, middle, and high school teachers.
(4) KICE develops survey questionnaire for students, teachers, and principals.
(5) Municipal and provincial educational authorities administer these tests to their
students.
(6) KICE analyzes about 3% ~ 5%-sampled data from total populations, and reports the
test results.
Table 2 shows 2007 NAEA's research subjects, assessment areas, item types, and others,
such as the listening comprehension test or questionnaires.
Specifically, both Korean Language and English tests included listening comprehension
through the Educational Broadcasting Systems (EBS), which was a nationwide broadcasting
system in South Korea. In addition, KICE analyzed about 3% ~ 5%-sampled data from the
total population and reported the results to the public. Additionally, almost all municipal and
provincial educational authorities have administered the NAEA tests to their all students and
analyzed their whole data according to their own purposes.
Table 2. Structure of 2007 NAEA
Research Subjects Assessment Areas Item Types and Others
Korean
Social Studies
6th Grade Mathematics
Sciences
English - Multiple-choice items and constructed response items for each s
ubject were developed for each subject.
Korean - Constructed response items took 20-40% of the total score depen
Social Studies ding on the features of the subject.
9th Grade Mathematics - Listening comprehension test was included in Korean and Englis
Sciences h.
English - Questionnaires for students, teachers, and principals were develo
ped to investigate the relationship between the background variabl
es and the students’ academic achievements.
Korean - 2007 NAEA implemented on October 16-17, 2007.
Social Studies
10th Grade Mathematics
Sciences
English
IV. COLLEGE SCHOLASTIC ABILITY TEST (CSAT)

The College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) is administered at the national level to
screen eligible candidates for higher education. CSAT is administered once in a year at the
national level. The purposes of the CSAT are as follows (KICE, 2007):
(1) To screen the eligible candidates for higher education.

(2) To contribute to the improvement of high school education.
(3) To provide valid, reliable, and objective data for selecting new students for colleges
and universities.
In addition, the general procedures for CSAT are as follows (KICE, 2007):
(1) The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE and HRD)
has set up the basic policy for CSAT.
(2) KICE works out the basic action plan.
(3) KICE develops the test items.
(4) Municipal and provincial educational authorities administer these tests to their
students.
(5) KICE analyzes and reports the test results.
About 580,000 applicants (12th grade students, high school graduates, and those having
equivalent certificates) took the CSAT on November 15, 2007. The stanine score for each
content area appeared exclusively on the student report card of CSAT in 2007. For your
reference, the stanine score is a type of standardized score with nine levels (see Table 3).
40 Sun-Geun Baek
However, the stanine score, percentile score, and one standardized score within two types
(one type’s mean equals 100 with standard deviation equals 20 or another type’s mean equals
50 with standard deviation equals 10) will be appeared on the student report card of CSAT
since 2008.
Table 3. Structure of Stanine Score
Stanine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Scores
% 4 7 12 17 20 17 12 7 4
Percentile 100-97 96-90 89-78 77-61 60-41 40-24 23-12 11-5 4-1
Table 4. Structure of 2007 CSAT
Times Maximum
Content Areas Items
(Minutes) Scores
Korean 80 100 50
Mathematics A or B 100 100 30
English 70 100 50
Social Studies (4 out of 11 areas)

30 for 50 for 20 for
or Sciences (4 out of 8 areas)
each area each area each area
or Vocational Education (3 out of 17 areas)
Foreign Languages or Chinese Characters and
40 50 30
Classics (1 out of 8 areas)
Table 4 shows the 2007 CSAT's content areas, periods of time for tests, maximum raw
scores, the number of items, and item types.
The CSAT score is one of the most important data for getting admission into colleges or
universities.
For your reference, higher educational institutes in South Korea generally use 'the total
entrance examination scores' to select new students among high school graduates or those
who have equivalent certificates.
The total entrance examination scores are consisted differently among higher educational
institutes or even are consisted differently among departments, within the same
institute. Some institutes (or departments) use only (i) CSAT scores, whereas some institutes
use (i) CSAT scores and (ii) the information on SAR, and others use (i) CSAT scores, (ii) the
information on SAR, and (iii) institutes' own entrance examination scores such as interview
scores, essay writing scores, recommendation letters' scores, awards, and so on.
In order to present more substantial information about the college and university
admission system in South Korea, Table 5 shows the case of the Seoul National University,
which is the best university in South Korea. Please note there are a few differences in the
contents of Table 5 depending on departments or colleges within Seoul National University.
Table 5. Seoul National University’s Admission System in 2008
Admission Type Regular Occasional Special
1,761 (53.7%) 115 (3.5%)

No. of Students
1,401 (42.8%) Type A: 831 (24.8%) Type 1: 95 (2.9%)
(Total: 3,277)
Type B: 930 (27.7%) Type 2: 20 (0.6%)
- The residents of
rural or fishing
villages, or disabled
Higher than level 2 (top
students.
Qualification - 11%) in CSAT at least 2
- Higher than level 2
out of 4 areas.
(top 11%) in CSAT
at least 2 out of 4
areas.
SAR, CSAT, interview,

CSAT, SAR,
documents The same as
Materials essay writing,
(recommendation letter, regular type.
interview, etc.
awards, etc.)
<Type A>
Selection Step I
SAR: 100%
(selecting 1.5 - 3
CSAT: 100%
times of the
<Type B>
quorum)
Documents: 100%
<Type 1>
CSAT: 50%
<Type A> SAR: 30%
SAR: 80% Interview: 20%
Documents: 10%
Interview: 10% <Type 2>
SAR: 50%
CSAT: 40%
Selection Step II Essay Writing:
<Type B> SAR: 20%
(final stage) 30%
1) Documents: 50% Interview: 40%
Interview: 20%
Interview: 30%
Essay Writing: 20%
2) Documents: 50%
Interview: 50%
42 Sun-Geun Baek
V. TEACHER COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION (TCDE)

The Teacher Competence Development Evaluation (TCDE), which was designed to
evaluate primary, middle, and high school teachers based on their teaching skills and
management abilities. The main purpose of the TCDE is for the development of primary and
secondary teacher’s competence in order to increase the competitive power of public
education. It will be fully implemented at all schools by 2008 (MOE and HRD, 2007b).
According to the results of the first nationwide TCDE trial operation at 67 primary and
secondary schools in 2006, 74 percent of the teachers thought favorably of the TCDE system.
It worked as a means of self-reflection, helping them to analyze the strengths and weaknesses
of each individual teacher, and to identify the specific needs of both students and parents.
Students and parents also positively responded to the TCDE system. They thought that it
helped increase trust for teachers and ensured that student opinions were adequately reflected
in class and school operations.
The government implemented the second nationwide TCED trial operation in 506
primary and secondary schools on March, 2007. Following the ministry’s master plan, at the
end of the trial period, principals, vice principals, and teachers in 237 primary schools, 189
middle schools, and 80 high schools will have been evaluated by other teachers, vice
principles, and principals based on their teaching skills and management abilities. Students
and parents will also be surveyed to measure their satisfaction with teachers’ performance, as
well as the principal’s competence.
VI. TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTE ACCREDITATION

SYSTEM (TEIAS)
The Teacher Education Institute Accreditation System (TEIAS), which was designed to
evaluate and accredit each teacher education program and institute. TEIAS can be defined as
an official verification system to see whether or not each teacher education program and
institute met the prescribed standards for quality assurance and quality improvement. The
main purpose of TEIAS is the improvement of teacher education programs and institutes, in
order to bring up highly professionalized primary and secondary teachers. It will be fully
implemented by 2009 (MOE and HRD, 2007c).
There are two serious problems within the teacher education system. The first is the wide
gap between the supply and the demand of initial teachers, and the other is the inadequacy of
quality management for teacher education programs and institutes. Even though there are
recently very low employment rates, there are still so many teacher education programs and
institutes, as well as so many people who have teacher qualifications. For example, there are
total 392 secondary teacher education programs and institutes, but less than the 20%
nationwide employment rates of 2005 (Baek, 2007). Additionally, there is almost no quality
management system for teacher education in South Korea. In order to solve these problems,
the accreditation system of teacher education institutes should be implemented as soon as
possible.
VII. CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

Since 1998, the Korean society has been characterized with democratization and concerns
for the public welfare, ICT (information communication technology)-oriented
industrializations, openness and globalization. There have been many educational reforms to
reduce private tutoring expenses, enhance the quality of human resources, build
infrastructures for lifelong learning, and expand investment for the disadvantage. Educational
reforms in South Korea will be an ongoing effort, striving to improve every sector of
education, including educational evaluation.
The current issues of educational evaluation in South Korea are almost the same as
already described above, such as SAR, NAEA, CSAT, TCDE, and TEIAS. There are many
ongoing conflicts among stakeholders with those educational evaluation policies. For
example, teachers unions are strongly against the implementation of TCDE and many teacher
education programs and institutes are against the implementation of TEIAS. Many teachers
and professors still dislike any change or any reform within the educational evaluation
system. Some people also dislike the implementation of a competition system, in order to
improve the competence of teachers, as well as the quality of education. However, it is
generally impossible to go against the current main stream of the 21st century, where one
finds limitless competition age mixed with globalization.
Educational evaluation has been used as inquiry and judgment methods, in order to
optimize the evaluation object, in relation to its intended purposes or to help stakeholders
determine whether the evaluation object is worthy of adoption, continuation, or expansion
(Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen, 2004). Therefore, educational evaluation will be used
continually as main tools for the development and improvement of primary, secondary, and
higher education in South Korea.
South Koreans hope that every individual will have an equal and easy access to high
quality education at any time and any place. There is an old proverb in South Korea: A father
who wants to make plans for the next 10 years, plants a tree for his son, while a father who
makes plans for the next 100 years, invests in the education of his son. We believe prospects
for our education in the 21st century are very bright, because we not only acknowledge the
importance of education, but are also making substantial investments to build a powerful state
in education.
REFERENCES
Baek, S. G. (2007). Political suggestions for the successful implementation of the
accreditation system on teacher education institutes. Journal of Educational Evaluation,
20(2), 25-49.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., and Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative
approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation. (2007). The implementing plan for the college
scholastic ability test in 2007. KICE homepage: http://www.kice.re.kr/.
Korean Educational Development Institute. (2007). 2006 educational statistics in South
Korea. KEDI homepage: http://www.kedi.re.kr/.
44 Sun-Geun Baek
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007a). New teacher’s manual
for school activities records. MOE and HRD homepage: http://www.moe.go.kr/.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007b). New implementation
plan for the teacher competence development evaluation. MOE and HRD homepage:
http://www.moe.go.kr/.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007c). New implementation
plan for the teacher education institute accreditation system. MOE and HRD homepage:
http://www.moe.go.kr/.
Seoul National University. (2007). The selecting plan for new coming students. SNU
homepage: http://www.snu.ac.kr/.
Chapter 4
DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

AND CHALLENGES OF PRACTICING EDUCATIONAL
EVALUATION IN THAILAND
Sirichai Kanjanawasee
Center on Educational Testing and Evaluation for Educational
and Professional Development, Faculty of Education,
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a brief overview of current educational evaluation issues and
challenges in Thailand. Thai basic education is divided into 4 levels: 1) Grades 1-3 2)
Grades 4-6 3) Grades 7-9 ,and 4) Grades 10-12. At the final year of each level, students
must pass 4 types of assessments correspondence to each institution’s standards: 1) 8
subject areas assessment, 2) reading, thinking and writing skills’ assessment, 3) desired
learner attributes assessment, and 4) assessment of the participation in a developmental
activities program. Therefore, we need to develop phototypes of effective integrated
measurement tools and a procedure manual for a systematic assessment.
The new university admission system was designed and implemented in 2006, using
integrated multiple indicators to evaluate student achievement and performance. These
included: 1) The overall cumulative grade point average (GPAX) for Grades 10-12, 2) the
grade point average (GPA) in Grades 10-12 in 3 to 5 of the 8 subject groups of the core
curriculum; and 3) results of the Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET) and/or the
Advanced National Educational Test (A-NET). These designs are facing new challenges
regarding the practice of evaluation techniques that are meaningful and fair for all
students.
Keywords: educational assessments, quality assurance, basic education, admission system.

46 Sirichai Kanjanawasee
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides general information on Thailand’s education system relating to the
basic education, professional standards for teachers and higher education admission system. It
presents an overview on related aspects of academic achievement assessments in basic
education and the evaluation of student achievement and performance for entering a new
higher education admission system. It also addresses the challenges of the evaluation role to
improve educational quality system and provides some policy recommendations.
At present, the framework of education reform in Thailand is based on the 1999 National
Education Act which provides principles and challenging guidelines for the provision and
development of Thai education in order to prepare all Thai people to live in a learning
society. In this regard, Thai people shall attain full development in terms of physical and
spiritual health, intellect, morality and integrity, as well as a desirable way of life that focuses
on living in harmony with other people.
The educational system is classified into 3 types: formal education, non-formal
education; and informal education. The formal education services are provided to these inside
the school system, through both public and private bodies. It is divided into 2 levels: basic
education and higher education. The basic education covers pre-primary, 6 years of primary
education, 3 years of lower secondary education, and 3 years of upper secondary education.
Higher education is provided at universities, institutions, colleges or other types of
institutions. It is divided into two levels: associate degree and degree levels. The non-formal
education services are provided by both public and private bodies to those outside the school
system. Informal education enables learners to learn by themselves according to their
interests, potential, readiness and the opportunities available that are organized by
individuals, families, communities, authorities or other learning networks.
EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

As specified in the 1999 National Education Act, educational reform in Thailand must
establish education standards which are the specification of desired educational quality for
benchmarking, promoting, monitoring and quality assurance.
There are currently three types of standards: national education standards, and standards
for internal quality assurance and for external quality assessment.
National Education Standards
The Office of the Education Council (OEC) is responsible for proposing national
education standards. Consequently, sets of standards were formulated by the Office in
cooperation with the offices responsible for basic, vocational, and higher education as well as
the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment. With approval from the
Council of Ministers, on October 26, 2004, agencies providing education at all levels are
expected to abide by the national education standards, which are comprised of three
categories:
Development of Educational Evaluation and Challenges… 47
(I) Desirable characteristics of the Thai people, as both citizens of the country and
members of the world community, consist of 5 indicators:
1) sound physical and mental health;

2) required knowledge and skills sufficient for leading a meaningful life and social
development;
3) skills in learning and self-adjustment;
4) social skills;
5) righteousness, public-mindedness, and consciousness of their citizenship of Thailand
and the world.
(II) Guidelines for educational provision consist of 3 indicators:
1) development of a diversified curricula and ambiance enabling learners to develop

themselves in line with their natural inclinations and to the best of their potential; and
2) systematic and effective development of administrators, teachers, faculty staff and
education personnel;
3) practice of school-based management.
(III) Guidelines for creating a learning society/knowledge society consist of 3 indicators:
1) provision of academic services and establishment of cooperation between

educational institutions and community, so as to transform educational
institutions into a learning society/knowledge society;
2) research and study, promotion of and support for learning sources and
mechanisms;
3) generation and management of knowledge for the benefit of all levels and
components of the society.
The national education standards serve as the basis for setting assessment standards of
internal and external quality assurance mechanisms.
Educational Standards for Internal Quality Assurance
Currently, all agencies concerned have made progress in the development of relevant
educational standards for internal quality assurance as a guideline in the provision of
education by educational institutions under their supervision.
For example, learning standards for basic education have been formulated to respond to
the 2001 curriculum. In addition, the Committee for Development of a System to Evaluate
Higher Education Quality has appointed a sub-Committee to develop and set national
standards for higher education.
Educational Standards for External Quality Assessment
The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA)
conducts external quality assessment at the levels of basic education and higher education
(lower-than-degree and degree levels) in line with relevant educational standards that focus
on assessment of educational institutions in the following respects: (1) educational
achievement (output/outcome); (2) input/process; and (3) efficiency in administration and
leadership.
1) Educational Standards for External Quality Assessment at Basic Education Level

Educational standards for external quality assessment of basic education institutions were
approved by the Council of Ministers, in January 2000. These standards, which are composed
of 14 standards and 53 indicators, can be classified into 3 groups as follows:
1.1) Standards of Learners, consisting of 7 standards with 22 indicators, aim at physical,

spiritual, intellectual and social development;
1.2) Standards of process, consisting of 3 standards with 21 indicators, focus on
administrative and teaching-learning processes; and
1.3) Standards of Imput specify the characteristics or readiness of administrators, teachers
and the curriculum. They are composed of 4 standards, with 10 indicators.
2) Educational Standards for External Quality Assessment at Higher Education Level

Educational standards for external quality assessment of higher education institutions
have been stipulated. These include: (1) Graduates Quality; (2) Teaching and Learning; (3)
Academic Supports; (4) Research and Innovation; (5) Academic Services; (6) Preservation of
Arts and Cultures; (7) Management and Administration; and (8) Internal Quality Assurance
System.
DEVELOPMENT OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

A quality assurance system is comprised of quality control, quality audit and quality
assurance. Quality assurance can be divided into 2 main factors: internal quality assurance;
and external quality assessment. To enable linkage and consistency between internal quality
assurance and external quality external quality assessment, the system criteria and methods
for internal quality assurance as well as for external quality assessment have been formulated.
Internal Quality Assurance
Internal Quality Assurance, primarily serves as a basis for external assessment. All
educational institutions are required to implement an internal quality assurance system
comprised of self-control, self-audit, and self-assessment toward their educational standards.
The institutions must disseminate their Self-Study Report (SSR) each year.
The continuous process of internal quality assurance of all educational institutions

consists of planning, assessment and improvement of their performance. Each educational
institution is required to prepare its own educational development plan in line with the
objectives and principles of the National Education Act, the National Education Standards as
well as the aims, philosophy, and charter of the institution; clearly determine the time frame
of implementation; continuously monitor and assess its own performance; and finally use the
assessment results to improve and develop a high quality of education.
Each educational institution is required to complete its internal quality assurance report
before the beginning of the following academic year. The assessment results of educational
quality as well as guidelines or programs for improvement and development of educational
quality must be presented during the following year. As for the report, it must be submitted to
the parent organization, the agencies concerned, the ONESQA and be made available to the
public.
External Quality Assessment
The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA),
established as a public organization in November 2000 to oversee external quality
assessment. The ONESQA, utilizing qualified external assessors under contract to assess both
basic and higher education institutions following standards relating to educational
achievement (output/outcome); input/processes; and efficiency in administration and
leadership. The external quality assessment of all institutions is conducted at least once every
five years. The assessment outcomes will be submitted to the agencies concerned and made
available to the general public.
Besides the education standards, the National Education Act also stipulated that teachers’
Council of Thailand shall be regarded as the Teachers and Educational Personnel Council. It
is incorporated with the principal objective to determine professional standards, issue and
revoke licenses, supervise and monitor the compliance with the professional standards and
code of ethics, including professional development, so that educational professional
practitioners, namely, those who are licensed to practice the teaching profession, educational
institution administrators, educational administrators and other educational personnel
(educational supervisors), shall have knowledge and understanding in the practice of
educational profession which is the licensed profession. The Secretariat Office of the
Teachers’ Council of Thailand therefore established these Educational Professional
Standards.
The Educational Professional Standards, which consist of standards of professional
knowledge and experience, standards of performance and standards of conduct, have been
announced as the Teachers Council of Thailand Regulation on Professional Standards and
Ethics in 2005.
In the educational professional practice, those who enter such profession shall meet the
specified standards of professional knowledge and experience, so as to be eligible to obtain
the license to practice the profession.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS

Standards of Professional Knowledge and Experience
• Standards of Teachers’ Knowledge
Have minimum qualifications with Bachelor’s degree in education or the equivalent or

other degrees as accredited by the Teachers’ Council of Thailand, with knowledge in the
following areas:
1) Language and technology for teachers.

2) Curriculum development.
3) Learning management.
4) Psychology for teachers.
5) Educational measurement and evaluation.
6) Classroom management.
7) Educational research.
8) Educational innovation and information technology.
9) Teachership.
• Standards of Experience for Teachers
Have completed their teaching operations at educational institutions under the

educational degree curriculum for a minimum of one year and passed the criteria for
evaluation of the teaching operations in accordance with the rules, procedures and conditions
as set out by the Teachers’ Council of Thailand Board as follows:
1) Training in professional practice during study.

2) Teaching operations in educational institutions on specific subjects.
Standards of Performance
1) Regularly practice academic activities relating to the development of the teaching

profession.
2) Make decisions to practice various activities taking into account consequences for
the learners.
3) Be committed to developing learners to reach their full potential.
4) Develop teaching plans for effective implementation.
5) Regularly develop instructional media to be effective.
6) Organize instructional activities focusing on permanent results for learners.
7) Systematically report on results of learners’ quality development.
8) Conduct themselves as good role models for learners.
9) Constructively cooperate with others at the educational institution.
10) Constructively cooperate with others in the community.
11) Seek and use information for development.

12) Create opportunities for learners to learn under all circumstances.
Standards of Conduct
• Personal ethics
1) Education professional practitioners shall have self-discipline and improve their

professional practice, personality and vision to keep up with the academic,
economic social and political development.
• Professional ethics
2) Education professional practitioners shall have love, faith, integrity and

responsibility for the profession and act as good members of professional
organizations.
• Client centered ethics
3) Education professional practitioners shall care for and be merciful to, pay
attention to, assist and encourage their students and clients on an equal treatment
basis, in accordance with their roles and duties.
4) Education professional practitioners shall encourage their students and clients to
achieve learning, skills, good and proper conduct, in accordance with their roles
and duties, to their full capability and generosity.
5) Education professional practitioners shall conduct themselves as a good role
model in terms of physical conduct, speech and mental conduct.
6) Education professional practitioners shall not act in any manner, which is against
the physical, intellectual, mental, emotional and social development of their
students and clients.
7) Educational professional practitioners shall provide service honestly and equally
without asking for, accepting or acquiring any interests, which would be
considered abuses of their authority.
• Collegial ethics
8) Education professional practitioners shall provide assistance and support to one

another constructively by adhering to the morality and for crative synergy among
themselves.
• Societal ethics
9) Education professional practitioners shall conduct themselves as leaders in

economic, social, religious, art and cultural, intellectual and environmental
conservation and development as well as preserve the public interests and adhere
to the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State.
According to the teachers and Educational Personnel Act of B.E.2547 (2004), there is a
six-scale teacher classification framework based on academic status for the new salary
structure. The classification ranges from assistant teachers, teachers, experienced teachers,
higher experienced teachers, expert teachers, to specialized teachers. The Teacher Civil
Service Commission sets up the criteria for performance-based teacher evaluation system
including three areas: (1) The discipline, morality and ethical conduct, (2) Performance
quality/core and specific competencies, and (3) The performance results. The evaluation
system tries to promote teachers to higher academic status. Teachers who get promoted to a
higher level will get extra monthly allowance. In addition, all public school teachers will be
evaluated their performance every six months for a salary increase.
BASIC EDUCATION
In accordance with the focus on educational reform, many steps - from national policy to
institutional level – are being taken to develop the basic education curriculum and the
teaching-learning process, to improve the assessment and evaluation of achievement, and to
expand access to formal education.
Present Status of Basic Education
In 2002, in accordance with the National Education Act, 12 years of free basic education
was made available to students throughout the country, for the first time. The government
later increased that number to 14 years to include two years of pre-primary education. Basic
education covers pre-primary instruction, 6 years of primary, 3 years of lower secondary, and
3 years of upper secondary education, with the 9 years of primary and lower secondary levels
considered compulsory.
Basic Education Curriculum
A 2001 update of the Basic Education Curriculum called for “core requirements” as
prescribed by the Basic Education Commission, and “specific content”, is directly related to
local needs and contexts, to be developed by the educational institutions themselves.
(1) Basic Education Curriculum at the National Level

The 2001 Curriculum for Basic Education covers 12 years of basic education (Grades 1-
12), and is divided into 4 three-year stages, consisting of 1,000 – 2,000 hours per year.
In this curriculum, the knowledge and skills specified in Section 23 of the National
Education Act have been grouped into 8 subject areas: Thai Language, Mathematics, Science,
Social Studies, Religion and Culture, Health and Physical Education, Art, Career- and
Technology- Related Education, and Foreign Language. Additionally, activities that focus on
responding to the learner’s specific interests are also included.
In 2005, following nationwide training programmes for administrators, supervisors,
teachers, and personnel in related departments, the 2001 Curriculum for Basic Education
became fully implemented for all grades.
(2) Basic Education Curriculum at the Institutional Level

As stipulated in the National Education Act, educational institutions are required to
develop curriculum content relating to the needs of the community and society, and include
local wisdom and desirable attributes for members of the family, community, society and the
nation. The proportion of core curriculum to local content developed by the institution should
be approximately 70:30 flexibly applied in compliance with the nature of each subject.
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENTS IN BASIC EDUCATION

Basic Education in Thailand is divided into 4 levels:
Level 1. Primary 1 – Primary 3. (Grade 1 – Grade 3)
Level 2. Primary 4 – Primary 6. (Grade 4 – Grade 6)
Level 3. Secondary 1 – Secondary 3. (Grade 7 – Grade 9)
Level 4. Secondary 4 – Secondary 6. (Grade 10 – Grade 12)
Educational Assessments at the Institutional Level
At each level, Grades 3, 6, 9, and 12, students must pass four types of assessments
correspondence to each institution’s standards, they are: 1) Eight subjects areas’ assessment,
2) Reading, critical thinking and writing skills’ assessment, 3) Desired learner attributes’
assessment, and 4) Assessment of participation in developmental activities program.
Educational Tests at the National Level
Since 2001, students studying in Grades 3, 6, and 9, are obliged to take national
educational tests administered by the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) in 2
to 5 subjects. Beginning in 2005, Grade 12 students wishing to pursue higher education must
take the tests administered by the National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS) as
shown in Table 1.
The national tests for Grade 12 students are of 2 types, the Ordinary National Educational
Tests (O-NET) and the Advanced National Educational Test (A-NET). Both O-NET and A-
NET require tests in 5 subjects; however, A-NET focuses more on critical thinking and
analytical skills. Results from O-NET and A-NET are used as one of the factors in the revised
higher education admission system.
Table 1. Subjects Required in National Educational Tests
Subjects Required
Levels of
Mathematics Thai Social Organizers
Education Science English
Language Sciences
Grade 3 x x OBEC
Grade 6 x x x x OBEC
Grade 9 x x x x x OBEC
Grade 12 x x x x x NIETS
Source: Bureau of Educational Testing, OBEC and The National Institute of Educational Testing
Service.
Current Issues and Policy Recommendations
Educational assessments of basic education are facing multi-level problems as follows.
At the National Level
1. Quality Assurance System

Schools are carrying out their internal quality assurance not for self-development to
improve student learning but to avoid being compared with the external standards and criteria
set by ONESQA.
The National education policy should be to apply quality assurance as quality
management for linking external quality assurance with internal quality assurance to ensure
that schools are fulfilling their own purposes and meeting their own standards, as well as
meeting predetermined minimum criteria or national quality standards.
2. Teacher Evaluation
Based on performance-based teacher evaluation systems, applying teachers are evaluated
by authorities from schools and local educational service areas. Many teachers are passed and
get promoted to a higher academic status, whereas students’ achievement remains the same,
and in some schools students’ achievement becomes worse.
The Teacher Civil Service Commission must make clear the goals and roles of the
teacher evaluation. The goals must be to elevate the quality of teaching and learning, while
the roles must involve both formative and summative purposes. Additionally, the evaluation
criteria needs to be revised to focus on classroom practices, student development, and
learning outcomes.
At the Institutional level

Three problems with assessments of students in schools are obvious.
1. Teachers assess students’ learning in eight subject areas, by focusing on memorizing

knowledge.
2. There are no well-constructed tools for assessing students’ ability in reading,
thinking and writing.
3. The assessments of desired learners’ attributes are based on the subjective judgment
of teachers.
The policy recommendations are as follows:
1. The school principal should impose effective teacher training regarding the
assessment of the eight subject areas that focus on higher ability measurement.
2. One key role for school principal is to ask academic staff and assessment experts to
develop prototypes for integrated reading, critical thinking and writing assessment
tools for teachers.
3. The school principal needs to ask academic staff and assessment experts to create a
procedure manual for systematic assessment of desired learners’ attributes.
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Higher education is essential to human resource development, especially in this era of
globalization, where a country’s international competitiveness depends a great deal on the
capability of its citizens to thrive in a knowledge-based economy and society.
In response to government policy, the Office of the Higher Education Commission
proposed a roadmap to serve as guiding principles for promoting and developing the quality of
Thai higher education. Covering the years between 2005 and 2008, the roadmap consists of
measures to enhance the quality of graduates, lecturers, research projects and the management
of higher education institutions.
To increase access to and improvement in the quality of higher education, several
endeavors have been undertaken: the provision of the Income Contingent Loan; establishment
of new universities and the transformation of existing public institutions into autonomous
universities; reform of the central university admission system; and the promotion of research
and innovation of Thai higher education institutions.
Access to Higher Education
The previous national admission system, in effect since 1967, it was well-accepted as one
of the most fair educational procedures in Thailand. However it depended solely upon an
entrance examination that evaluated a student’s academic performance only through that
particular test. As a result, students tended to place less importance on learning for knowledge
and skills in their regular classrooms and concentrated their efforts on tutorials for particular
subjects, in order just to be successful on the entrance examination. Consequently,
responsible agencies, such as the Office of the Higher Education Commission, the Council of
University Presidents of Thailand, and the educational institutions themselves called for a
change from the previous approach, with a new Central University Admission System
(CUAS).
Reform of the Higher Education Admission System
Beginning in 2006, students completing Grade 12 are obliged to take national educational
tests of 2 types: the Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET) and the Advanced National
Educational Test (A-NET).
Both examinations are administered by the National Institute of Educational Testing
Service to assess student proficiency in Mathematics, Thai language, Science, English
language and Social Studies, Religion and Culture. The A-NET tests focus more on critical
thinking and analytical skills, as well as aptitude in relation to professional disciplines.
The newly-modified university admission system can be summed up as follows:
(1) The Direct University Admission System

Under this system, each higher education institution determines and administers its own
admission criteria and procedures within certain fields of study consistent with its mission
and philosophy. For admission to some fields of study, the Direct Admission System may
also include O-NET and/or A-Net results. Aptitude tests not included in the national tests, but
required for certain fields of study, will be administered by the particular institution.
(2) The Central University Admission System (CUAS)

The admission system was redesigned and implemented in 2006, using integrated
multiple indicators to evaluate student achievement and performance. These include: (1) the
overall cumulative grade point average (GPAX) for Grades 10-12; (2) the grade point average
(GPA) for Grades 10-12 in 3 to 5 of the 8 subject groups of the core curriculum; and (3)
results of the O-NET and/or A-NET Tests.
The agencies involved are striving to further improve the CUAS so that students will be
able to study in the university programs they select, while at the same time focusing on
attaining a well-rounded education at the secondary level.
(3) Special Programmes and the Quota System

Apart from the normal admission system, a number of students are also admitted through
special programs and a quota arrangement set by the institution. For example, in cooperation
with the Ministry of Public Health, the faculties of medicine at Chulalongkorn, Chiang Mai,
Khon Kaen, Mahidol and Prince of Songkla universities admit about 15 percent of their
students through the ‘Promotion of Medical Science Education for Rural Areas’ Project.
Other programs admitting students through special university quotas include the
‘Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talents’ Project, the Sports
Promotion Programme and the Arts Promotion Programme.
New Designs, New Challenges and Policy Recommendations
(1)New Designs
Higher education admission system is always a high stake and crucial issue in Thailand.
It means the future life for students and their families, and there are many stakeholders
involved.
Table 2. Components of the New Central University Admission Systems
Academic Year
Components
2006 2007 2008
1. GPAX 10% 10% 10%
2. GPA (3-5 subjects areas from
20% 30% 40%
8subjects areas)
3. O-NET* 35-70%
60% 50%
4. A-NET* 0-35%
*
Remark Both O-NET and A-NET examinations are administered by the National Institute of
Educational Testing Service (NIETS).
The Office of Higher Education Commission and the Council of University Presidents of
Thailand has concluded the integrated multiple indicators to evaluate student achievement
and performance for entering higher education institutions as shown in Table 2.
(2) New Challenges

The O-NET and A-NET, national standard tests are constructed by the newly established
public organization, NIETS.
How did the NIETS develop the O-NET tests, which represent subject area content for
different school curricula?
How will the NIETS develop the A-NET tests, which correspond to subject areas for
different disciplines?
How will the NIETS manage the large scale testing effectively?
The students’ GPAX and GPA are grading from each school which is different in typical
curriculum, different tools, and probably different quality standards.
How will we figure out school’s GPA inflation rates and how can we make adjustments
for GPAX and GPA?
(3) Policy Recommendations

The O-NET and A-NET National Standard Tests:
• The Basic Education Commission must call for national content standards of core
curriculum in the eight subject areas. The NIETS should develop the O-NET Tests
which cover the national content standards for each subject area.
• The NIETS should develop the A-NET, Tests which focus more on critical thinking
and analytical skills as well as aptitude measures in relation to well-defined groups of
professional disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, education, architecture,
foreign languages, fine arts and music.
• The NIETS should establish testing standards for test construction, test
administration, test scoring and reporting. The NIETS should prepare for
computerized adaptive testing.
The Students’ GPAX and GPA:

• The Basic Education Commission should promote investigative research regarding

basic education achievement, GPA inflation, development of GPA inflation rates,
and linking of GPA and GPAX.
• The Higher Education Commission should encourage university scholars to develop
and compare GPA equating and linking methods among the linear method,
equipercentile method, regression method, and item response theory method to find
out the most appropriate model.
• The Council of University Presidents of Thailand should set up a taskforce to
conduct research on weighting the integrated multiple indicators and develop
composite index calibration methods that are meaningful and fair for all students.
CONCLUSION
As specified, in the 1999 National Education Act, educational reform in Thailand must
establish educational standards, revised curriculum, and quality assurance. Currently, there
are three types of standards: national standards, and standards for internal quality assurance
and for external quality assessment. In accordance with the focus on educational reform, the
Basic Education Commission called for curriculum change at the national level (core –
curriculum) and at the institution level (local – curriculum). The proportion of core
curriculum to local content developed by the institution should be approximately 70:30
flexibly applied in compliance with the nature of each subject.
The Basic Education is divided into 4 levels: 1) Grades 1-3, 2) Grades 4-6, 3) Grades 7-9,
and 4) Grades 10-12. At each level, upon leaving grades 3, 6, 9, and 12 students must pass 4
types of assessments correspondence to each institution standards: 8 subject areas’
assessment; reading, thinking and writing skills’ assessment; desired learner attributes
assessment; and assessment of the participation in developmental activities program. The
Thai Basic Education System is facing many assessment barriers. The national quality
assurance policy should link external quality assurance with internal quality assurance to
serve local wisdom and to meet minimum national standards. The new teacher evaluation
approach should focus on classroom practices, student development and learning outcomes.
The system needs effective in-service teacher training on the assessment of learners’ higher
ability. It also needs to develop phototypes of integrated reading, thinking and writing
assessment tools and procedure manual for systematic assessment of desired learners’
attributes.
The previous national admission systems for Higher Education depended solely upon an
entrance examination that evaluated a student’s academic performance only through that
particular test. As a result, students tended to pay less attention to learning in classrooms and
concentrated more on private tutorials, in particular on subjects that counted for the entrance
examination. Consequently, responsible agencies called for a change in the previous approach
to a new Central University Admission System (CUAS). The system was designed and
implemented in 2006, using integrated multiple indicators to evaluate student achievement
and performance. These included: 1) The overall cumulative grade point average (GPAX) for
Grades 10-12, 2) the grade point average (GPA) in Grades 10-12 in 3 to 5 of the 8 subject
groups of the core curriculum; and 3) results of the Ordinary National Educational Tests (O-
NET) and/or the Advanced National Educational Tests (A-NET). The admission system is
facing the challenges of developing the O-NET tests that represent content standards for
different school curricula; the A-NET tests that corresponds to well-defined groups of
professional disciplines. The system also needs to develop effective GPA – equating methods
and composite index calibration methods, probably based on IRT, that will be meaningful and
fair for all students.
REFERENCES
Kanjanawasee, S. et al. (2007). The research and development of monitoring and evaluation
system on Thailand education. Bangkok: Office of the Education Council.
Kanjanawasee, S. et al. (2006). The achievement evaluation of Ministry of Education’s
performance project. Bangkok: Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University.
Kanjanawasee, S. (2000). Learning assessment : Executive recommendations. Journal of Research
Methodology, 13(1), 75 – 91.
Kanjanawasee, S. (2007). Modern test theories. (3rd ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Book
Center.
Kolen, M. J. and Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
Office of the National Education Commission. (1999). The National Education Act of B.E.
2542(1999). Bangkok: Seven Printing Group.
Office of the Education Council. (2006). Education in Thailand. Bangkok: I.C.C. International Public
Co., Ltd.
Office of the Education Council. (2005). National education standards. Bangkok: VTC
communication Ltd. Partnership.
Secretariat office of the teachers’ Council of Thailand. (2005). Education professional
standards. Bangkok: Professional Standards Bureau.
Chapter 5
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION IN HONG KONG:

STATUS AND CHALLENGES
John Chi-Kin Lee

Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a brief overview of current educational evaluation measures and
related issues in Hong Kong. The foci of measures for discussion are quality assurance
mechanisms especially school self-evaluation (SSE) and external school review (ESR),
and Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA). Three questions are posed for discussion:
(a) How can we promote coherence among educational reform (highlighting students’
whole-person development) and educational supervision and evaluation policies
(stressing academic performances) in both rhetoric and practice? (b) How can we
promote a systematic linkage between centralized systems (ESR, SSE, BCA/TSA) and
localized systems (teacher evaluation) so as to drive school improvement/effectiveness
and teacher development/effectiveness? (c) How can we help relieve teachers’ workload
and anxieties linked with educational evaluation and foster a shared community of
educational evaluation among government agencies, SSB/SMC/IMC and teachers?
Keywords: Educational evaluation; quality assurance; Hong Kong.
I. INTRODUCTION
The term “educational evaluation” has diverse meanings and its scope is wide
encompassing many sub-fields and topics ranging from student evaluation (e.g., external
(public) examinations), personnel evaluation (e.g., teacher and principal evaluation) to
programme/project evaluation, school evaluation and system evaluation (e.g., international
studies of educational achievement, state and school district evaluation) (Kellaghan and
62 John Chi-Kin Lee
Stufflebeam, 2003a, 2003b). In this Forum for Educational Evaluation in East Asia –
Emerging Issues and Challenges, topics of presentations and sessions reveal the diversity
ranging from school evaluation systems, school-based assessments, teacher evaluation,
language proficiency assessment, international assessment (such as PISA), information
technology and psychological applications, to mobile devices and learning assessment, and
institutional evaluation (capacity building of evaluation personnel). While I shall give a very
brief overview of some of these topics, the paper will concentrate on the issues related to
school evaluation and teacher evaluation.
According to a seminar organized by the Asian Network of Training and Research
Institutions in Educational Planning (ANTRIEP) (De Grauwe and Naidoo, 2004, p.22),
school evaluation is “part of the decision-making process in education; it involves judgments
about the performance of schools through systematically collecting and analyzing information
and relating this to explicit objectives, criteria and values. Ideally, school evaluation involves
an (internal and external) assessment that covers all aspects of a school and their impact upon
student learning…From this perspective, school evaluation is not an end in itself, but the first
step in the process of school improvement and quality enhancement.” In that seminar, three
main evaluation tools, (external review or inspection, examinations and school self-evaluation
or internal evaluation) were discussed.
With regard to teacher evaluation, this covers a broad range of issues, such as licensure
testing for beginning teachers, innovations in teacher assessment and teacher tests and
connections between teacher evaluation, accountability and pay (Pearlman and Tannenbaum,
2003).
II. CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL

EVALUATION IN HONG KONG
Since 1997, Hong Kong has experienced not only political changes but also the gradual
introduction of a comprehensive range of educational reforms, aimed at enhancing quality in
education (Lee, 2005, 2006). Of the various reform measures, one is school-based
management (SBM). Schools are expected to transform themselves into dynamic and
accountable professional learning communities, to develop a proper performance appraisal
system for the evaluation and development of staff and to engage in internal self-evaluation
with external assessment (Advisory Committee on School-based Management, 2000).
Assessment for learning and school-based assessments in the area of student evaluation have
become increasingly important in the educational agenda in Hong Kong. This is partly
because of the advocacy of curriculum reform and partly because of the intended introduction
of school-based assessment (SBA) as a component of many future senior secondary (grades
10-12) subjects’ public examinations.
Concomitant with educational reforms, schools have encountered the challenges of
closure resulting from falling school enrollment, a consequence of a sharp decline in the birth
rate. Against this background, the Government and the school sector have given more
attention to educational evaluation issues, which are to some extent linked with the notions of
accountability, competition and the quest for excellence. Before going into details about
system evaluation, programme evaluation as well as external school review and school self-
Educational Evaluation in Hong Kong: Status and Challenges 63
evaluation, it is useful to understand briefly the main bodies for coordinating and arranging
different evaluation policies and measures in Hong Kong. As shown in Figure 1, most public
examinations and assessment measures (e.g., Basic Competency Assessment and Territory-
wide System Assessement) are under the purview of the Hong Kong Examinations and
Assessment Authority (HKEAA) while the Education Bureau (EDB) (formerly known as the
Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB)) has a Curriculum and Quality Assurance Branch to
implement quality assurance measures such as external school reviews and quality assurance
inspections. On the other hand, the EDB may commission external bodies (e.g., universities)
to conduct evaluation studies or large-scale assessments such as the PISA (Programme for
International Assessment).
With regard to system evaluation, Hong Kong has taken part in a number of large-scale
international studies of educational achievement such as PISA, TIMSS (Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study) (e.g., Leung, 2005) and PIRLS (Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study) (e.g., Tse and Loh, 2007). Taking PISA, organized by
the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) as an example, the
analysis of findings from PISA revealed that “Hong Kong’s education system has achieved
both excellence and equality of opportunity when compared with other participating
countries…Hong Kong has the highest percentage of immigrant students among the
participating countries/regions, and the achievement gap between the non-native students and
local students is substantial” (Ho, 2005a, p.2). The findings from PISA inform us about other
issues, such as the influence of students’ self-regulated learning on their achievements (Ho,
2004) as well as student performance in various subjects in different medium-of-instruction
schools (e.g., Ho and Man, 2007).
Figure 1. Main educational bodies and selected educational evaluation measures affecting Hong Kong
schools.
64 John Chi-Kin Lee
On the other hand, there are public examinations and territory-wide assessments
organized by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). The former
are exemplified by the Hong Kong Certification of Education Examination (HKCEE) at the
end of secondary five (grade 11) and the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE)
at the end of the sixth form (secondary seven, grade 13). It is worth noting that “standards of
performance on the HKCEE and HKALE have for many years been benchmarked against
standards in comparable subjects on British GCE and A/AS-Level examinations”.
(http://eant01.hkeaa.edu.hk/hkea/switch.asp?p_left=ir_left.aspandp_clickurl=http://www.hkea
a.edu.hk/zh/ir_intro.htm access: 1-11-2007). The latter refers to the Territory-wide System
Assessment (TSA), which will be discussed in the following section. Moreover, the
Education Bureau implemented a policy of language proficiency assessment for teachers
teaching English and Putonghua in which the HKEAA is responsible for arranging the
Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (LPAT).
As regards programme evaluation, schools have started to become acquainted with
monitoring or review of projects, especially those submitted to the Quality Education Fund
(QEF), established in 1998 to promote school-based, educational innovations. The QEF
stipulates that leaders of QEF projects need to submit progress reports, involving self-
evaluation of project effectiveness (with regard to attainment of the stated objectives, success
of the activities in the light of the impact on the participants and resources (e.g., people, time
and equipment, etc.) used for the activities). For the final report, the project impact in terms
of a project’s effects on learning effectiveness, professional development and/or school
development should be addressed and evaluated using an evidence-based approach. In
addition, evaluation of a project needs to include the quality and dissemination value of the
project deliverables (http://qef.org.hk/eng/main.htm?plan/plan01.htm, access: 26-7-2007). On
the other hand, teachers in some schools may have the chance to engage in small-scale action
research (e.g., Lee and Leung, 2006; Lee, 2007; Lee, Yin and Zhou, 2008) or learning studies
(Lo, 2006) through participation in university-school partnership projects (Lee and Williams,
2006).
III. QUALITY ASSURANCE, SELF-EVALUATION

AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FOR HONG KONG SCHOOLS
In 1997, the Quality Assurance Inspectorate (QAI) was established and since 2003 there
has been “School Development and Accountability” (SDA) framework, set up to promote
school improvement through a combination of School Self-evaluation (SSE) and External
School Review (ESR). Such a framework reflects a gradual shift from an emphasis on
external inspection to a school’s own review of its performance as a starting point, to be
validated by ESR and the school as the center for change and improvement (Tang, 2008).
In the handbook Self-evaluation: Background, principles and key learning (MacBeath,
2005), published by the National College for School Leadership, there is a section on “Self-
evaluation and school review in Hong Kong” (pp.39-40). This praised Hong Kong’s model as
“exemplary of the sequential model, one that lies closest to the New Relationship in Schools
in England and one that offers some pointers to both the strengths and potential pitfalls of
shorter, sharper inspection centred on the school’s own internal evaluation” (p.39). It also
highlights the following issues (p.39):
• There may be disagreements over the final grade of different aspects of school
quality or a lack of democratic process in arriving at the final grade; and
• Downgrading of grades by the external school review (ESR) team may sometimes
lead to disappointment or resentment but in most cases the school accepts the
professional judgment and opinions of the ESR team
In Hong Kong, some school improvement projects were launched that helped schools to
familiarize themselves with, and implement, self-evaluation. Pang (2004, p.5), for example,
initiated projects adopting a bottom-up approach that aimed to help schools: develop their
own models of school-based management in the spirit of the recommendations of the
Education Commission Report No.7; institutionalize a self-evaluation framework in daily
practices for continuous improvement; and develop their own sets of school-based
performance indicators for use in school self-evaluation.
On the other hand, the Education and Manpower Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR
Government launched a partnership project known as the School Development through
School Self-evaluation Project with twenty-one schools (McGlynn, 2004; QAC, EMB, 2003a,
2003b).
The project proposed three focuses or circles of evaluation: learning at the center or first
level; culture, which refers to the enabling conditions and ethos conducive to student learning,
as the second level; and leadership as the third level (Kennedy and Lee, in press). The SSE
activities chosen by the project schools ranged from reading and/or writing, peer
observation/collaborative teaching, students’ evaluation of teachers’ performance, using a
staff appraisal process to promote school self-evaluation, teachers’ view of the ideal and
actual school, appraising the school’s performance through surveys of stakeholders to
students’ perceptions of the quality of school life and comparison with teachers’ views to
evaluation of the programme on personal and social education, evaluation of the staff
development programme in a new school, evaluation of mathematics teaching and students’
views on their first week in primary school (QAC, EMB, 2003a, p.12).
In addition to the efforts by various universities and the Government, some professional
organizations played a part in promoting school self-evaluation. Under the auspices of the
District Teachers’ Network, the Hong Kong Primary Educational Research Association and
the Education and Manpower Bureau co-organised with the School of Educational
Management of Beijing Normal University a “Sharing and Action Research on School Self-
evaluation in Primary School” project involving nine schools (Hong Kong Primary
Educational Research Association, 2003).
The project aimed to promote a culture of school self-evaluation through workshops on
using schools’ performance indicators, teachers’ and students’ self-evaluation, peer
observation and action learning on teaching practices (Kennedy and Lee, in press; Wu and
Lee, 2005).
MacBeath and Clark, commissioned by the Quality Assurance Division (QAD),
Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) (now called the Education Bureau), led and
conducted two phases (Phase I and II) of “The Impact Study on the Effectiveness of External
School Review in Enhancing School Improvement through School Self-evaluation in Hong
66 John Chi-Kin Lee
Kong” (QAC, EMB, 2005, 2006). It is noteworthy that “the role and task of the SIT/SSE
team holds the key to embedding self-evaluation in the school (QAC, EMB, 2005, p.11) and
“school leadership is ultimately the single most important ingredient in making SSE work.”
(QAC, EMB, 2006, p.14).
According to a Legislative Council paper submitted by the Education and Manpower
Bureau in June 2007 (LC Paper No. CB(2)2071/06-07(01)), the major achievements and
observations of the SDA framework are (EMB, 2007, pp.4-5):
(a) giving impetus to nurturing the culture of school self-evaluation (SSE);

(b) promoting the use of data and evidence as a basis for SSE;
(c) creating a greater sense of openness and transparency within schools; and
(d) inducing a positive impact on learning and teaching.
In the second cycle, scheduled to start in 2008/09, the following guidelines will be used
(based on p.7 and p.8):
(a) the process will continue to be improvement oriented;

(b) the process will become more focused and school-specific, making reference to the
findings of the first ESR report for individual schools;
(c) the process will embed SSE in ongoing school practice, strengthening SSE and ESR
as integral parts of the school improvement process; and
(d) the process will streamline the SDA process (such as refining performance indicator
(PI) areas and Key Performance Measures (KPMs)), further reducing teachers’
workload.
IV. BASIC COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT AS “STATE” EVALUATION:

A FORM OF SYSTEM EVALUATION
The Basic Competency Assessment (BCA) has two components: student assessment and
system assessment (now called the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA)). The former
refers to a resource bank on assessment for learning provided through the internet and the
latter is administered at the territory level at the three levels of Primary three, Primary six and
Secondary three.
The TSA is developed as a low-stake assessment tool intended to provide feedback to
schools about their standards in the three subjects of Chinese language, English language and
mathematics so that schools and teachers could make plans to improve effectiveness in
learning and teaching (http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/eap_web/ bca/index3.htm access 25-7-
2007). Despite the good intention of having TSA as a low-stake assessment, some schools
worried that the data, if unfavourable to the school, would affect the parents’ and EDB image
of the school and be used as a reason for school closure by the government. Some schools
were found cheating by encouraging weak students to abstain from the examinations while
some others arranged intensive drilling for students. There were also concerns that the TSA
scores of new immigrants and special needs students would be calculated on a separate basis
as this was perceived to be unfair to schools.
V. TEACHER (STAFF) APPRAISAL AS A FORM

OF SCHOOL-BASED TEACHER EVALUATION
In Hong Kong, it is basically up to the individual School Sponsoring Body (SSB) and/or
School Management Committee (SMC)/Incorporated Management Committee (IMC) to
decide upon their own teacher appraisal system (Lee, Lam and Li, 2003). These observations
are pertinent:
• While staff appraisal systems and the peer observation in schools are more popular,
they are still in various stages of development depending on individual SSB, SMC or
IMC. As staff appraisal systems are not usually and directly linked with incentives,
the assessment does not tend to be very rigorous (meeting the threshold and having a
central tendency in the case of having different raters). Most teachers do not feel
threatened by in-house evaluation.
• Teacher evaluation places more emphasis on overall professional duties than on
actual classroom teaching practices and/or student learning effectiveness/quality.
• There is also an increasing tendency to involve more than one evaluator in the
process of school-based teacher evaluation and having principal evaluation
conducted by teachers.
• There is little linkage or loose coupling between teacher evaluation and school
improvement.
VI. INITIAL OBSERVATIONS ON PRINCIPALS’

AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
MEASURES (E.G., ESR AND SSE, TSA AND TEACHER APPRAISAL)
According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Primary Educational Research
Association and Education Convergence (2006), primary school teachers perceived that the
following policy measures had pressured them (in rank order): Territory-wide Assessments
(TSA), Language Proficiency Assessment (Benchmarking) for language teachers;
implementation of inclusive education; self-evaluation mechanism under school management;
and external school review.
For secondary school counterparts, the policy measures perceived to have pressured them
(in rank order): external school review, senior secondary curriculum reform, change to a 3-3-
4 system (six years’ secondary school system and four years’ university system); Language
Proficiency Assessment (Benchmarking) for language teachers; and self-evaluation
mechanism under school management. These evaluation and assessment measures that have
generated teachers’ anxiety should not be taken lightly by policymakers.
The writer has recently conducted studies of principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of
quality assurance measures (e.g., ESR and SSE, TSA and teacher appraisal) in five primary
schools in Hong Kong and the following are initial observations:
68 John Chi-Kin Lee
• While different schools revealed varying stages of development in school self-

evaluation, almost all principals saw the positive benefits brought about by school
self-evaluation with external school review.
• Some teachers felt that SSE and ESR brought an increased workload in preparing
documents, together with threats of uncertainty, while some others perceived that
ESR could provide a recognition of a school’s accomplishments.
• Some teacher interviewees were still worried that less than outstanding and good
TSA scores would be used as evidence of unsatisfactory performance in external
school review. This could be used as an implicit reason for school closure and
follow-up monitoring by the EDB.
• While most schools used TSA as feedback for improving learning and teaching, they
placed different emphasis on and had varying modes (e.g., extra lessons, TSA format
assessment, soliciting parental support in speech training) of preparing students for
TSA.
VII. THE WAY FORWARD

Educational evaluation is a powerful approach to appraise the effectiveness and quality of
inputs, processes and outputs in an educational system. It is also a useful approach to provide
opportunities for self-evaluation, reflection and continuous improvement as well as to provide
timely and important information to various stakeholders.
Nonetheless, in an education system like Hong Kong, accountability and performance are
highlighted, which may induce stress to teachers and school resistance to the adoption of
evaluation measures.
Also, the cultural heritage emphasizing academic excellence in Hong Kong may
exacerbate competitiveness among students, teachers and schools, defeating the good
intentions of evaluation (such as in the case of TSA and school self-evaluation) in providing
feedback for improvement. It is therefore imperative for policymakers, university professors
and frontline practitioners to explore solutions for resolving challenges that result from
evaluation policies and these solutions entail:
(a) promoting coherence among educational reform (highlighting students’ whole-

person development) and educational supervision and evaluation policies (stressing
academic performances) in both rhetoric and practice;
(b) promoting a systematic linkage between centralized systems (ESR, SSE, BCA/TSA)
and localized systems (teacher evaluation) so as to drive school
improvement/effectiveness and teacher development/effectiveness; and
(c) helping reduce teachers’ workloads, relieving any anxieties linked with educational
evaluation and fostering a shared community of educational evaluation among
government agencies, SSB/SMC/IMC and teachers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank EDB’s colleagues, Mr Tony Tang, PAS(QA) for his
considerable support in providing useful information and Ms Po-ling Wu, PEO(QA) for her
help in interviews conducted for this study. Sincere thanks are extended to Professor Michael
Williams for his advice.
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on School-based Management (2000). Transforming schools into
dynamic and accountable professional learning communities: School-based management
consultation document. Hong Kong: Printing Department.
De Grauwe, A., and Naidoo, J. P. (2004). Seminar report: School evaluation for quality
improvement: issues and challenges. In A. De Grauwe and J. P. Naidoo. (Eds.), School
evaluation for quality improvement: An ANTRIEP report (pp.15-40). UNESCO:
International Institute for Educational Planning.
Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) (2007). Report on the implementation of the school
development and accountability and the planning of the second cycle. LC Paper No.
CB(2)2071/06-07(01).
Kennedy, K., and Lee, J. C. K. (in press). The changing role of schools in Asian societies:
Schools for the knowledge society. London: Routledge.
Ho. E. S. C. (2004). The nature and impact of self-regulated learning on student’s
achievement: What we have learned from the first cycle of PISA. Hong Kong: Faculty of
Education and Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong (in Chinese).
Ho, E. S. C. (2005). Can basic education system in Hong Kong be equal and excellent:
Results from PISA2000+. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education and Hong Kong Institute of
Educational Research.
Ho, E. S. C. and Man, E. Y. F. (2007). Student performance in Chinese medium-of-
instruction (CMI) and English medium-of-instruction (EMI) schools: What we learned
from the PISA study. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education and Hong Kong Institute of
Hong Kong Primary Educational Research Association (Ed.). (2003). Action research and
sharing of primary schools Self-evaluation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Primary Educational
Research Association. (in Chinese).
Hong Kong Primary Educational Research Association (HKPERA) and Education
Convergence (EC) (2006). A research study on Hong Kong teachers’ stress: Preliminary
analysis. Educational Research Report Series No. 2. Hong Kong: HKERA and EC.
Kellaghan, T. and Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). (2003a). International handbook of educational
evaluation (Part one: Perspectives). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kellaghan, T. and Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). (2003b). International handbook of educational
evaluation (Part two: Practice). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lee, J. C. K. (2005). School effectiveness and improvement in Hong Kong: Review and
prospect. Educational Journal, 33(1-2), 1-23. (in Chinese).
70 John Chi-Kin Lee
Lee, J. C. K. (2006). Commentary on papers presented at the MORE symposium at the ICSEI
Annual Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12(6), 595-600.
Lee, J. C. K. (Li Zijian) (2007). Foreword: University and school partnership research: From
4P to 4R. Shanghai Research on Education, 8, 1.
Lee, J. C. K., Lam, W.P. and Li, Y. Y. (2003). Teacher evaluation and effectiveness in Hong
Kong: Issues and challenges. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1),
pp.41-65.
Lee, J. C. K. and Leung, Y. M. J. (2006). Exploring the core elements of improving
classroom learning and teaching. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Educational
Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Lee, J. C. K., and Williams, M. (Eds.) (2006). School improvement: International
perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Lee, J.C.K., Yin, H. and Zhou, Z. (2008). Facilitating teacher professional development
through ‘4-P’ model: Experiences from Hong Kong’s Partnership for Improvement of
Learning and Teaching (PILT) project. Journal of Educational Research and
Development, 4(2), 17-47. (in Chinese)
Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classrooms based on
data from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(2), 199-
215.
Lo, M. L. (2006). Learning study – the Hong Kong version of lesson study: Development,
impact and challenges. In M. Matoba, Crawford, K. A., Mohammad, R. S. Arani (Eds.),
Lesson study: International perspective on policy and practice (pp. 133-157). Beijing:
Educational Science Publishing House.
McGlynn, A. (2004). Self-evaluation or self-delusion: The choice is yours. in N.S.K. Pang, J.
MacBeath and A. McGlynn (Eds), Self-evaluation and school development (pp.17-22).
Hong Kong: Faculty of Education and Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
MacBeath, J. (2005). Self-Evaluation: Background, Principles and Key Learning.
Nottingham: National College of School Leadership.
Pang, N. S. K. (2004). Developing schools through self-evaluation, in N. S. K. Pang, J
MacBeath and A. McGlynn (Eds), Self-evaluation and school development (pp.1-9).
Hong Kong: Faculty of Education and Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research The
Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Pearlman, M., and Tannenbaum, R. (2003). Teacher evaluation practices in the accountability
era. In T. Kellaghan and D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational
evaluation (Part two: Practice) (pp.609-642). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Quality Assurance Division, Education and Manpower Bureau (QAC, EMB) (2003a). Is our
school a Hong Kong school of today and tomorrow: A self-evaluating school is the way
to success. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/
Tc/Content_705/SSE_Pub1.pdf.
Quality Assurance Division, Education and Manpower Bureau (QAC, EMB) (2003b). School
self-evaluation: Making it happen in twenty one schools. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/Tc/Content_705/SSE_Pub2.doc.
Quality Assurance Division, Education and Manpower Bureau (QAC, EMB) (2005). The
impact study on the effectiveness of external school review in enhancing school
improvement through school self-evaluation in Hong Kong. Phase I report executive

summary. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/filemanager/en/
content_176/phase_i_impact_study_on_esr_executive_summary_eng_0505.pdf.
Quality Assurance Division, Education and Manpower Bureau (QAC, EMB) (2006). The
impact study on the effectiveness of external school review in enhancing school
improvement through school self-evaluation in Hong Kong. Phase II report executive
summary. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/filemanager/en/
content_176/phase_ii_impact_study_on_esr_executive_summary_eng_0806.pdf.
Tang, T.F.Y. (2008). School development and accountability in Hong Kong: A quality
assurance framework. Journal of Quality School Education, 5, 39-55.
Tse, S. K., and Loh, E. K. Y. (2007). The impact of PIRLS in the Hong Kong, SAR. In K.
Schwippert (Ed.), Progress in reading literacy: The impact of PIRLS 2001 in 13 countries
(pp. 109-126). Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
Wu, S. W. and Lee, K. K. (2005). Improve school self-evaluation by practice. Hong Kong
Teachers' Centre Journal, 4, 109-14. (in Chinese).
PART II. VARIATIONS AND EVOLUATION
Chapter 6
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY

ASSURANCE: THE CASE OF HONG KONG
Nicholas Sun-keung Pang

Department of Educational Administration and Policy,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
ABSTRACT
In recent years, the Education and Manpower Bureau (now Education Bureau) has
implemented a two-pronged approach to assuring the quality of education in Hong Kong:
an external mechanism via inspection and an internal framework via self-evaluation.
However, both of these are mainly top-down and less effective than expected. This essay
argues that quality assurance in collaboration with an external independent agency
through a bottom-up approach is a more effective way to sustain development in schools.
Schools can only improve continuously when they have institutionalized a bottom-up
approach to school self-evaluation. After introducing the details of a series of school-
university partnership projects concerned with school self-evaluation in Hong Kong, this
paper investigates the potential effectiveness of implementing self-evaluation in Hong
Kong schools and the factors that have both hindered and facilitated such a policy.
Keywords: quality assurance, school self-evaluation, school inspection, sustainable

development, school self-renewal, bottom-up approach.
THE QUALITY ASSURANCE MOVEMENT IN HONG KONG

There have been rapid changes in both the educational system and the schools themselves
in Hong Kong, due to the recommendations of the Education Commission Report No. 7
(ECR7) issued in 1997. The ECR7 recommended a two-pronged approach to ensure the
quality of education in Hong Kong: an external assurance mechanism and an internal quality
assurance framework. While the external quality assurance mechanism was achieved through
76 Nicholas Sun-keung Pang
the establishment, in 1997, of a Quality Assurance Inspectorate (QAI) to which schools were
accountable, the internal quality assurance framework relied on schools’ own ability to
evaluate themselves as part of the process of school improvement. The external quality
assurance mechanism worked by adopting a whole-school approach to inspection by the QAI,
which assessed schools' effectiveness, identified their strengths and weaknesses, made
suggestions on ways of improvement and development in the schools, and released inspection
reports for public reference. In order to continuously improve the quality of school education,
all schools were also expected to engage in cyclical processes of planning, implementation
and evaluation (Pang, MacBeath, and McGlynn, 2004).
Every school was expected to work towards meeting the educational needs of its students
as effectively as it could, and self-evaluation would provide information on which to base
plans for improvement. As for this self-evaluation, all schools were to produce documents
which outlined the long-term goals, prioritized development areas, set out specific targets for
implementation, evaluated progress made in work during the previous school year, and set
improvement or development targets for the coming year (Ministry of Education, 1984;
Scottish Office, 2002).
However, in the initial stage, the two strategies in this two-pronged approach to assuring
educational quality in Hong Kong might not have been as effective as expected. For one
thing, as for the external assurance mechanism, whole-school inspections could only take
place for two- or three-week periods (each time) and the QAI would not re-visit the same
school for at least five to six years, given the QAI teams’ manpower. Thus while whole-
school inspections were implemented in Hong Kong in the 1997/98 school year, between that
year and 2001/02 the number of schools inspected was only about 11.4% of the total.
Secondly, in conducting whole-school inspections in over 200 schools from 1998 to 2002, the
QAI found that most of these schools had not established a self-evaluation framework, and in
fact at that time there were still no appropriate school-based indicators for school self-
evaluation.
Schools can only improve continuously when they have institutionalized a self-evaluation
framework in daily practice and when there is a set of valid, reliable and school-based
performance indicators available for use in self-evaluation. Practicing self-evaluation enables
schools (i) to develop formal procedures for setting school goals; (ii) to have the participation
of teachers, parents and alumni in school management, development, planning, evaluation
and decision-making; (iii) to assess their progress towards goals as well as their own
performance over time; and (iv) to take appropriate steps toward self-improvement. When
school-based indicators are derived from the schools’ own stated aims, they are useful tools
for measuring and monitoring school performance in areas of interest. Self-evaluation with
appropriate school-based indicators provides information to schools, teachers, parents,
students and the community, using for reference the general profiles of schools and the
comparison among schools of similar background or quality. School self-evaluation and
school-based performance indicators are the crucial elements needed for continuous
improvement in and of schools (Cuttance, 1994; Scottish Office, 2002). A summary of the
pros and cons of this two-pronged approach to quality assurance in education is given in
Table 1.
Educational Evaluation and Quality Assurance 77
Table 1. The pros and cons of the two-pronged quality assurance strategy
Quality Assurance External Mechanism Internal Mechanism

1. Approach An innovative approach An incremental approach
2. Changing agent Quality Assurance Unit School Self-Evaluation
3. Changes A “crash-through” approach with An evolutionary development
radical “surgery”
4. Drives Top-down and external Bottom-up and internal
5. Pace of Change Fast, on schedule and intermittent Slow, continuous, and long lasting
QUALITY ASSURANCE THROUGH SELF-EVALUATION

Evidence-based organizational change is a very recent trend in the school reform and
improvement movement. It is important that schools’ organizational change should be based
on objective and reliable evidence of school performance. Once they have implemented self-
evaluation, schools should have a self-renewal mechanism for managing change, one which
can be built upon (1) clear and appropriate diagnosis of the school as an organization, and (2)
the role of the administration. Experience in both research and practice has shown that if
school reforms are to succeed, organizational changes need the active support of the principal.
The principal needs to be an advocate of self-evaluation and be prepared to articulate a vision
of self-renewal for the school. School development cannot be copied or otherwise imposed
from outside. The principle needs to understand the current situation, including strengths and
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) to the organization; he or she needs to
determine the goals to be attained within the next 1-3 years, and develop the strategies to be
pursued in order to achieve them. Institutionalization of self-evaluation in the organizational
framework and daily managerial practices allow the principal to lead the school towards
effective educational change (MacBeath, Jakobsen, Meuret and Schratz, 2000; Gamage and
Pang, 2003).
To successfully institutionalize a self-renewal framework in daily managerial practices as
well as to lead and manage change effectively, the principle or leader needs to: (1) acquire
appropriate knowledge and understanding of the theoretical framework of school self-
evaluation; (2) develop and acquire the necessary skills and attitudes for self-evaluation and
manipulation of performance indicators; (3) think through his/her leadership role as a guide to
action; and (4) clarify for him/herself the strategic elements essential to an effective
implementation of the school development plan. Then the principal should examine the types
of knowledge, skills and attitudes which need to be developed for successful implementation
of organizational change.
What Is School Self-Evaluation?
School self-evaluation (SSE) is a mechanism through which a school can help itself
review the quality of the education it provides, improve continuously and develop itself into a
more effective school. The three major questions usually asked in the process of school self-
evaluation are: (1) How can we know about our school’s present performance? (2) What is
our school's present performance? (3) What will we do after knowing this? These seem to be
simple questions, but if we want to have a full picture or thorough understanding of our own
school, we need to go through a systematic and objective self-evaluation.
The Basic Steps in School Self-Evaluation
School self-evaluation contains several identifiable stages. These are: problem

recognition, identifying priorities, defining important questions, data collection, data analysis,
reporting and communicating, school development planning, school culture building, and
feedback and evaluation. All these stages need to be fully implemented in a sequential order.
Thus, the following schema will be useful to a leader initiating change in the organization. It
needs to be re-emphasized that the leader should have a good understanding of the concept
and process of school self-evaluation and consequent self-renewal. Here is a fuller description
of these stages:
Problem identification: An organization becomes aware of the existence of a

problem that needs to be fixed. The leader either recognizes and confronts it, or
overlooks and ignores it.
Identifying priorities: There may be problems in a school’s various domains, for
example, organization and management, teaching and learning, ethos and support,
academic and affective performance. However, a school cannot solve all these
problems within a single year. Administrators should prioritize the problems based
on the teachers' will and students' needs.
Defining important questions: For any identified problem, the school should know
the key questions involved. These will be answered through a systematic process of
data collection and analysis.
Data collection: Data can be collected through questionnaires, observations and/or
interviews, in order to ascertain whether the problem has been fixed or still exists.
Consideration should be given to the sources of data which may make significant
contributions to assessments of the school's performance.
Data analysis: On the basis of data collected through questionnaires, observations or
interviews, attempts should be made to identify, clarify, and re-define the problems.
Reporting and communicating: Staff should be briefed on diagnostic data and
involved in developing strategies to solve the problems, providing opportunities for
staff training on group dynamics, communication techniques, and goal setting.
School development planning: An attempt should be made to bridge the gap between
the current situation and what should have happened. A consultant or expert can help
in determining: What steps should be taken? By whom? When? And how?
Implementation of steps should be monitored to resolve any difficulties which may
arise.
School culture building: Efforts should be made to build trust and confidence,
improve communication, build teams, develop skills in problem solving, and
strengthen cooperation among different subsystems of the school.
Feedback and evaluation: Feedback should be provided to staff as the final step in
the school self-evaluation cycle. A new cycle then needs to be initiated in order to
institutionalize school self-renewal (self-development) as a continuous process of

innovation and change (Rudd and Davies, 2000).
Schools should gather information based on the perceptions of administrators, teachers,

parents, students and the community, for comparison with schools of similar background or
within the same “quality circle” in order to promote continuous improvement and
development.
A Bottom-Up Approach to School Self-Evaluation in Hong Kong
After conducting the first few cycles of whole-school inspection starting in 1998, Hong
Kong’s QAI (in 2003 renamed the Quality Assurance Division, QAD) found that a self-
evaluation framework had not been generally established in Hong Kong schools and that no
appropriate school-based indicators had been developed for use in school self-evaluation. In
response to these weaknesses the author, with the support of the Hong Kong Centre for the
Development of Educational Leadership (HKCDEL) and the Quality Education Fund (QEF),
launched a series of school improvement projects to help Hong Kong schools institutionalize
a self-evaluation framework in daily practice, acquire the skills and techniques needed for
school self-evaluation, and develop a set of valid, reliable and school-based indicators for use
in self-evaluation.
These projects aimed at helping schools to (i) develop their own models of school-based
management in the spirit of the recommendations of Education Commission Report No. 7;
(ii) acquire the skills and techniques of school self-evaluation (SSE) and institutionalize a
self-evaluation framework in daily practice for continuous improvement; (iii) develop their
own sets of school-based performance indicators for use in school self-evaluation; (iv)
enhance the capability of coping with challenges arising from educational reforms that would
have a great impact on schools in the near future; and (v) keep developing continuously and
fostering a culture of organizational learning among all participating schools. In total, 107
kindergartens, 154 primary schools and 197 secondary schools in Hong Kong have taken part
in these projects in the period 2000-2010 (see Table 2).
Table 2. The school improvement projects organized by the School Development and
Evaluation Team (SDET) in Hong Kong
Period Project Project Title Kinder- Primary Secondary Total

Duration gartens Schools Schools
2000-2002 2-year School Self-evaluation and School- 10 10 20
based Performance Indicators (Quality
Education Fund)
2001-2002 1-year School Self-evaluation and Renewal 2 2 4
2002-2003 1-year SSE Training Programs for Heads and 22 22

Teachers of the Catholic Church
2002-2004 2-year Self-Evaluation and School 10 10 20
Development
Table 2. (Continued)
Period Project Project Title Kinder- Primary Secondary Total

Duration gartens Schools Schools
2003-2004 1-year Initiating Organizational Change via 23 27 50
School Self-evaluation
2004-2005 1-year School Self-evaluation: Reinforcing 10 14 24
Organizational Change
2004-2005 1-year Self-Evaluation, External Review and 25 36 61
School Development
2004-2006 2-year Transforming Schools into Learning 10 10 20
Organizations (Quality Education
Fund)
2005-2006 1-year School Self-evaluation, External 20 36 56
Review and Sustainability
2005-2006 1-year Self-evaluation, External Review and 2 12 14
Extended School Development
(Teaching and Learning)
2005-2006 1-year School-based Self-evaluation and 2 3 5
Development
2006-2007 1-year School Self-evaluation: Surviving 4 5 9
Educational Reform
2006-2007 1-year Self-evaluation of Teaching and 2 6 8
Learning
2006-2008 2-year Learning to Learn: The Application of 3 0 3
Metacognition in Learning and
Teaching
2006-2008 2-year Metacognition in Learning and 9 9 18
Teaching: Supporting Students’
Learning Needs (Quality Education
Fund)
2007-2008 1-year School Self-evaluation: Surviving the 1 2 3
Educational Reform
2007-2009 2-year Metacognition in Learning and 4 4 8
Teaching
2007-2009 2-year School Self-evaluation: Optimization 42 42
of School Management
2008-2010 2-year Use of Metacognitive Strategies in 7 11 18
Promoting Self-regulated Learning
2008-2010 2-year Enhancing Effectiveness of Early 33 33
Childhood Education through the
Development of a Self-evaluation
Culture
2008-2010 2-year From Assessment for Learning to 10 10 20
Promoting Self-regulated Learning in
Early-childhood Education
(Kindergarten and Lower Primary
Levels) (Quality Education Fund)
Total No. of Schools 107 154 197 458
SETTING-UP A SELF-EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

In order to establish a climate of quality assurance and to cultivate a quality culture in the
participating schools, a normative re-education strategy was used to initiate changes in these
schools: this was a user-centered, bottom-up approach to school reform. In the improvement
projects all teachers in a school were allowed to participate in shaping the reform by
identifying their own needs, assessing the school’s present conditions and performance, and
formulating school development plans. Hence the activities organized in each school included
(i) setting-up of a School Development and Evaluation Committee (SDEC) in the
management structure; (ii) providing staff development programs for members of the SDEC;
and (iii) conducting workshops for all teachers in the school, in order to facilitate the practice
of school self-evaluation and the formulation of a school development plan.
Each of the participating schools established a School Development and Evaluation
Committee (SDEC) to facilitate efficient and effective school self-evaluation in daily
practice. In each school, the principal and a group of three senior teachers were SDEC
members. The major duties of the SDEC members were: (i) identifying priorities in the areas
related to school development; (ii) defining important questions to be investigated and
answered in self-evaluation; (iii) collecting appropriate data for consideration and reference;
(iv) analyzing data for interpretation and sharing; (iv) reporting and communicating results of
self-evaluation to concerned stakeholders; and (v) formulating a school development plan and
an action plan.
A staff development program was provided to all SDEC members in the participating
schools. This staff development program, which consisted of ten modules covering a wide
range of topics, helped the schools to practice school self-evaluation, to develop school-based
performance indicators for use in self-evaluation, and to grow, develop, and improve
continuously and effectively (Pang, 2007). The modules of the program were as follows:
Module 1: School-based Management and School Improvement

Module 2: School Development Planning
Module 3: School Self-evaluation and School-based Performance Indicators
Module 4: Theory and Practice in Teacher Supervision: A New Perspective
Module 5: Home-School-Community Co-operation
Module 6: Staff Growth and Development
Module 7: Curriculum Design, Implementation and Evaluation
Module 8: Strategic Planning and Financial Management in Schools
Module 9: Problem-based Management and Conflict Resolution
Module 10: Management Data Analysis and Basic Statistics
Two concurrent programs were run for SDEC members, one for the primary schools and
the other for the secondary schools. Modules 1-5 were conducted in the first year, and
Modules 6-10 in the second year. The programs aimed at enabling the principals and teachers
to grow and develop and to initiate changes in their own schools. Activities in the form of
workshops were designed to facilitate principals’ and teachers’ reflection on the concepts
introduced in the courses. There were training packages for each module; that is, in total ten
different packages for the program. The training packages were designed and produced for
self-learning purposes, with contents that were adaptable with minimal preparation or
background training.
A participatory approach was adopted for conducting the school self-evaluation
exercises. It should be stressed that practicing self-evaluation is the responsibility not only of
the SDEC members but also of the stakeholders in the schools, including school managers,
administrators, teachers, parents and students. Through the processes of self-evaluation a self-
renewal strategy has been institutionalized in the schools’ management structure, and through
participatory school self-evaluation a quality culture has been fostered in these schools.
The projects lasted for either one or two years, depending on each school’s own
preference. Four workshops within two years were offered for all teaching staff from each of
the participating schools. The first whole-school workshop in Year 1 aimed to (i) facilitate
setting up a self-evaluation framework in each of the participating schools; (ii) help teachers
incorporate self-evaluation exercises in their daily work; and (iii) enable teachers to acquire
the skills of self-evaluation and knowledge of how to use performance indicators. The second
whole-school workshop in Year 1 aimed to facilitate a participatory approach, in order to (i)
interpret the results of self-evaluation; and (ii) formulate a school development plan for the
next year. These schools were also provided with consultancy and in-service training in
interpreting self-evaluation reports and formulating school development plans in the
workshops. The first whole-school workshop in Year 2 aimed to (i) reinforce and consolidate
the school’s self-evaluation culture; (ii) facilitate the school’s development of its own ‘quality
culture’; and (iii) foster a culture of organizational learning in the school. The second whole-
school workshop in Year 2 aimed to (i) present the results of school self-evaluation for the
past two years to all staff members of the school; (ii) facilitate a participatory approach to
interpreting the longitudinal self-evaluation data for the purpose of comparison; and (iii)
facilitate a participatory approach to the formulating of a school development plan for the
next few years.
Relationships among Performance Indicators, School Improvement

and Educational Research
School self-evaluation (SSE) and performance indicators (PIs) are both essential to
schools’ continuous improvement. Schools should have information about the perceptions of
administrators, teachers, parents, students and the community for reference and also for
comparison among schools of similar background. It is difficult to “see” or demonstrate
continuous school improvement, if appropriate performance indicators have not been
developed for use in school self-evaluation.
A theoretical framework for the relationships among performance indicators, school
improvement and educational research is proposed in Figure 1. When we evaluate the
performance of a number of schools against a standardized set of performance indicators, we
are obviously doing one kind of educational research. The group of schools we are looking at
in our research will form a quality circle for comparison. Findings from such research will
inform us about the best schooling practices and tell us what we can learn from the experience
of failure or poor performance.
PI 10
PI 9 School Improvement
PI 8
PI 7
PI 6
PI 5 Educational Research
PI 4
PI 3
PI 2
PI 1
Sch 1 Sch 2 Sch 3 Sch 4 Sch 5 Sch 6 Sch 7 Sch 8 Sch 9 Sch 10
Figure 1. The Relations among Performance Indicators, School Improvement, and Educational
Research.
On the other hand, when a school’s performance is evaluated against different sets of
indicators, the results of this evaluation will show the school’s performance in different areas
of concern, and thus it will become clear which areas are weakest and most in need of
improvement for a particular school.
Theoretical Framework for Educational Evaluation
In light of the above considerations, it will be clear that the development of sets of
performance indicators (PIs) for use in self-evaluation is also an important task within the
larger project of school self-improvement. Two kinds of PIs were employed in these school
improvement projects:
(1) a standardized set of PIs for comparing the performance of the participating schools,
and
(2) sets of school-based PIs (SBPIs) developed by teachers for their own use in self-
evaluation in different schools. A theoretical framework for educational evaluation is
proposed in Figure 2.
This framework allows the School Development and Evaluation Committee (SDEC)
members to consider the kinds of indicators that will suit their needs, the areas of evaluation
that they are interested in, and the sources of data that they will need in order to design a set
of school-based performance indicators for their own use in self-evaluation. The probable
areas to be evaluated within the schools include administration and management, teaching
and learning, quality of school life for teachers and students, staff development and
organizational learning, school ethos and culture, home-school-community cooperation, and
so forth.
Figure 2. Theeoretical Framework for Educational Evaluation.
A Standardized Set of Performance Indicators for Comparison
For the sake of comparison and forming a quality circle, all schools participating in the
projects have used these sets of PIs for evaluating school performance. These PI sets were
mainly developed by the School Development and Evaluation Team (SDET) of the Chinese
University of Hong Kong. These sets are theoretically grounded and have good validity and
reliability. Furthermore, the areas for evaluation are different in the two-year school
improvement projects. The areas to be evaluated in the participating schools for Year 1 are
summarized in Table 3, for Year 2 in Table 4.
Table 3. Areas for evaluation in Year 1
Quality of Students’ School Life Teachers’ Feelings about School Life

Students’ Perception of School Climate School Organizational Values
Students’ Socio-Economic Status School Organizational Learning
Students’ Perception of Parental Styles Parents’ Perception of the School
Table 4. Areas for evaluation in Year 2
Students’ Meta-cognition Instructional Leadership

Students’ Emotional Intelligence Instructional Climate
Teachers’ Meta-cognition Teaching Effectiveness
Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence Effectiveness of the Appraisal System
Teachers’ Job Satisfaction Parents’ Perception of the Child
The combinations of different evaluation areas allow principals and teachers to

understand a given school’s strengths and weaknesses from different perspectives and thus
allow the triangulation of findings.
Sets of School-Based Performance Indicators
The sets of school-based performance indicators (SBPIs) were independently developed

by the members of School Development and Evaluation Committees (SDECs). The SDEC
members had to identify their own problems in the schools and define their priorities with
regard to school improvement. They had to develop a set of SBPIs for use in self-evaluation
to suit their individual needs. The SDEC members acquired the skills and techniques needed
for developing SBPIs when they attended the training program offered in these projects.
It must be stressed that the PI sets developed should be school-based, i.e., grounded in the
context of a particular school and suited to the needs of that school. Thus in the choice,
development and testing of these PI sets the SDEC members should already have consulted
most teachers concerning their school’s own preferences and interests. In this way, consensus
and compromise could be reached prior to the full use of SBPIs in school self-evaluation.
CONCRETE BENEFITS TO SCHOOLS

Since change and transformation are slow, progressive, incremental processes, it would
be unrealistic to expect or seek sudden, disruptive changes in schools. Nevertheless, concrete
benefits of the project were as follows: (i) schools started to foster a culture of self-evaluation,
that is, a culture of organizational learning for continuous improvement (Pang, 2006a); (ii) a
few training packages on school self-evaluation and the use of school-based performance
indicators were developed, which were useful for other schools engaged in a similar
endeavor; and (iii) publications resulted, and these disseminated good practices in school self-
evaluation.
The participating Hong Kong schools have been benefited by these projects in four main
ways. First, a self-renewal strategy has been institutionalized in the schools through
establishing a self-evaluation framework and using school-based indicators in self-evaluation;
this self-renewal strategy allows schools to enhance their capacity for change and develop
continuously. Secondly, school administrators’ and teachers’ skills and techniques in self-
evaluation have been enhanced through a series of training courses designed specifically for
them; their professional competence, confidence and performance is promoted by their
participation in these programs and courses. Thirdly, the learning of students will be
improved when schools’ effectiveness has been enhanced and when a quality culture has been
cultivated in these schools. Fourthly, parents and the wider community will be benefited
because the school self-evaluation process has led to annual reports containing fair, reliable
and objective information about the schools. These reports ensure that schools are
accountable to parents and to the society.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHOOL

SELF-EVALUATION IN HONG KONG
After conducting the school-university partnership projects over the course of a few years,
the author conducted follow-up qualitative research to solicit the principals' and teachers’
views on the effectiveness and usefulness of these projects and explore the factors that
seemed to help and hinder the implementation of school self-evaluation (SSE) in Hong Kong
schools. A sample of 20 schools was randomly selected for this qualitative research project,
and 18 of their principals were interviewed. Teachers' views on the same subject matter were
also solicited during whole-school workshops held in the schools. In total, about 900 teachers
from the 20 schools participated in group discussions through the activities organized in the
workshops. The principals’ and teachers' views and opinions, thus collected, were
summarized and transcribed, and subsequently analyzed and categorized into themes. These
are summarized below.
Factors That Hindered the Implementation of SSE
Generally, most principals and teachers opined that school self-evaluation had not been
the normal practice in schools and it was, to them, a new and innovative concept. They
thought that since the implementation of SSE involved a paradigm shift in school
management and change in normal school life for all teachers, external support including
financial resources, staff development programs and in-house and consultancy services
should be provided. In addition, most principals and teachers would like SSE to be
implemented phase by phase, thus giving them more time and “space” to acquire the relevant
new knowledge and skills. They reported that in the present turbulent school environment,
where there were already many school reforms and innovations, the further introduction of
new concepts such as school self-evaluation would inevitably lead to resistance. There were
also many specific factors that hindered the implementation of SSE in Hong Kong schools,
and these are summarized and classified below at the system level and the school
organizational level.
Hindrances at the System Level

1. A loosely-coupled system. The Hong Kong education system is still a loosely-coupled
system, with subsidized schools forming the major sector. About 80% of all schools
in Hong Kong are subsidized schools, 5% are government schools, 5%, are direct
subsidized schools (DSS), and 10% are private schools. While subsidized schools
receive financial support from the government, they have their own school
sponsoring bodies and management committees. Compared to government schools,
subsidized schools have greater autonomy and more freedom of choice in responding
to requests for change and the implementation of new educational policies by the
Education Bureau. That is, resistance to change in the Hong Kong educational
system is much greater than that in the educational systems of other countries, where
the state or government schools form the largest sector.
2. A too-ambitious plan. There are approximately 1,000 schools, including primary and
secondary, in the Hong Kong education system. Conducting whole-school territory-
wide inspections or external school reviews within a few short years was an
unrealistic plan. Expecting most schools to be self-reliant in conducting self-
evaluations, and to become more open to change within a year or so, was again
impractical and unattainable.
3. Too many existing reforms. There have already been many new reform proposals for
the educational system in Hong Kong in the 21st century, in addition to those left
over from the last decade. Furthermore, the implementation of these reforms and
policies has mainly been attempted without good planning and co-ordination.
Schools have been suffering from the great confusion and other burdens arising from
these reforms. Any introduction of further new reforms and programs in schools
would cause, at best, indifference and perhaps resistance because of the tremendous
pressure and workloads already existing in schools.
4. School self-evaluation is a complex process. The implementation of school self-
evaluation involves a change of school culture and a change of general practices in
school life. Such changes cannot be achieved only through directives issued by the
education authorities, but need a well-planned, bottom-up strategy of initiation and
introduction which means extra resources and support from external sources.
5. Lack of resources. Effective implementation of new reforms or initiatives needs extra
resources and support. At a time of economic recession in the early years of the new
millennium in Hong Kong, the shortage of financial and human resources has created
more difficulties for the implementation of school self-evaluation throughout the
territory.
Hindrances at the School Organizational Level

Implementation of SSE at the school level is not an easy task, given the present turbulent
environment and conservative culture found in most Hong Kong schools. Based on the
above-mentioned research, the author observed several major factors that hindered the
effective implementation of school self-evaluation. Since these factors are commonly found
in most Hong Kong schools, they are worthy of the special attention of school leaders and
administrators.
1. The plurality of categories of stakeholders and the diversity of views and opinions in
schools may have led to many excellent reforms being opposed.
2. Past failures in the implementation of educational policy caused schools to take a
passive and conservative approach to educational reforms.
3. Schools are inevitably political arenas and power struggles are common. These
created resistance to educational policy change in the schools.
4. School leaders and teachers in some schools might have been embroiled in conflicts
which caused tension, fear, and low morale among teachers, not conducive to self-
reflection and self-evaluation.
5. The communication breakdown between teachers and administrators found in some
schools meant a very weak basis for professional collaboration and commitment.
6. Most teachers and principals had little knowledge of or skill in school self-
evaluation, and misconceptions about SSE were common.
7. There were no guidelines and other criteria for measuring success that were
commonly agreed upon for use in evaluation.
8. There were no formal, systematic, in-depth, well-designed professional training
programs to train people in the implementation of SSE.
9. Most schools were either passive or actively opposed to change, and their
organizational learning culture was not well-developed.
10. Most schools lacked a long-term vision of, or ability to plan for, school development
and improvement.
Factors That Facilitated the Implementation of SSE
Though there were a predominance of factors that seem to have hindered the effective
implementation of self-evaluation in Hong Kong schools, there were also a few factors, at
both the system level and the school level, that facilitated self-evaluation in the school
context.
Facilitators at the System Level

1. A leaner, flatter governance structure of the central education authority. Based on
the recommendations of the report on the Education Department (Education and
Manpower Bureau, 1998), the Hong Kong Government successfully merged the
Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) with the Education Department (ED) in
2002. Therefore the governance and ruling structure of the school educational system
has changed from a three-tier structure (EMB-ED-Schools) to a two-tier one (EMB-
Schools). The interdependence between policy making and policy implementation
has consequently been strengthened, and the school educational system has become
more tightly organized. The central educational authority is now more interactive,
and more responsive in addressing the problems and difficulties which arise in the
implementation of quality assurance mechanisms.
2. An evolving model of quality assurance. Though the two-pronged strategy (an
external assurance mechanism and internal quality assurance framework) for
guaranteeing the quality of education in Hong Kong has remained unchanged since
1997, the internal framework for quality assurance has been evolving in order to
meet the new needs of schools in the ever-changing external environment. A new
framework, which enhances school development and accountability through school
self-evaluation (SSE) and external school review (ESR), was introduced in 2003
(Education and Manpower Bureau, 2003). This framework stresses the internal
mechanism more than the external one, and more resources have been put into the
promotion of school self-evaluation.
3. Availability of tools for self-evaluation. Following a few years of development and
continuous testing, the former Education and Manpower Bureau was successful in
developing some sets of tools for use in schools’ self-evaluation. These tools
included performance indicators and key performance measures in the domains of
management and organization, teaching and learning, school support and ethos, and
academic and non-academic outcomes (Quality Assurance Division, 2002). They
provided balanced coverage and a common platform for assessment of different
aspects of schoolwork and student performance for SSE and ESR, and also
established territory-wide norms against which school performance could be
measured and assessed. Stakeholders’ questionnaires for teachers, pupils and parents,
and other tools in the social and affective domains for students, were developed for
use in SSE, and schools were allowed to choose the relevant indicators for their own
needs and uses.
Facilitators at the School Organizational Level

A few schools participating in the projects successfully created a culture of self-
evaluation and organizational change. Such a culture already existed, at least in potential
form, in some of these schools before they took part in the projects; others had to create this
sort of culture after joining the projects. The school improvement projects provided guidance
and consultancy on school development, which facilitated the implementation of self-
evaluation in these schools and enhanced their transformation into learning organizations
(Pang, 2006a). Factors that facilitated the implementation of school self-evaluation in these
schools are summarized below.
1. Enhanced leadership. The management of organizational change calls for “strong”

leadership (Gamage and Pang, 2003), and there was a tendency at this time toward
stronger leadership in the schools that was better able to succeed in implementing
school self-evaluation and initiating organizational change. While some
organizational components have a limiting influence on others because of the
presence of multiple and often conflicting goals, the success in achieving beneficial
organizational change in these schools was due to a strong leadership that eliminated
these tensions by deciding upon unified goals and clarifying technology.
2. Shared values. There were, to a considerable extent, shared values among the staff
members in the schools which promoted school self-evaluation in the management
and organizational structure. Sharing values is the one fundamental activity that
holds staff together and unified when they are faced with changes in long-term and
short-term goals. If organizations are determinate means-ends structures for attaining
preferred outcomes, then agreement about preferences is the only source of order that
is left.
3. Focused attention. There was special attention given to human relations in the
management system in the schools that had successfully implemented school self-
evaluation. Small-step strategies within a confused, turbulent and ever-changing
environment may produce more effective, efficient, interesting, varied, and
thoughtful organizational changes. Leaders in these schools have compensated for
multiple and conflicting goals by carefully selecting targets, controlling resources,
and acting forcefully.
4. Good team spirit, high staff morale and a strong sense of professionalism. The
schools that were very successful in the implementation of SSE possessed a very
strong teaching force that had good team spirit and high staff morale, as well as a
strong sense of professionalism. The formation of the strong, professional teaching
force was not an accident but the result of deliberate and careful selection during the
recruitment of personnel. High teacher morale and a strong team spirit were also the
result of the enhanced leadership and effective management systems in the schools.
The above are then the findings of the author’s qualitative research into the effectiveness
of implementing self-evaluation in schools and the factors that both hindered and facilitated
organizational change. These findings shed light on how school administrators can lead and
manage the kind of organizational change that will really promote school development and
improvement.
CONCLUSION
Evidence-based organizational change has become a very recent trend in the school
reform and improvement movement, a movement in which school self-evaluation plays an
important role. School self-evaluation provides a framework which allows school leaders to
institutionalize a self-renewal strategy in daily managerial practices as well as to lead and
manage change (Pang, 2006c). Due to various hindrances at both the educational system level
and the school organizational level, many Hong Kong schools have not been effectively
establishing a self-evaluation framework, and many still have a relatively weak culture of
self-renewal. Nevertheless, a normative re-education strategy may be effective in helping
schools to surmount the resistance and the hindrances found at both system and
organizational levels. The school improvement projects launched in this study are a case in
point, showing that organizational change can be initiated through the putting into practice of
school self-evaluation. The practical experience gained from even a few successful schools in
the project can shed light on the problem of how to help other schools transform into learning
organizations through this implementation of SSE.
In order to facilitate change in schools, administrators need to demonstrate strong
leadership that can unify their school’s goals and make clear what kind of technology is
needed for achieving them. Such leadership is also necessary in order to promote the sharing
of values among all members and their agreement on preferences. It is necessary for the
focusing of leaders’ attention by carefully selecting targets, for controlling resources, and of
course for acting forcefully (Gamage and Pang, 2006). A good team spirit, high staff morale
and strong sense of professionalism do not only form the crucial basis for change, they also
help reduce resistance to change (Pang, 2006b). Effective leaders are those who can adopt
these approaches in order to be flexible in coping with the challenges created by an ever-
changing external environment, and in continuing to lead their organizations towards
excellence.
REFERENCES
Cuttance, P. F. (1994). Monitoring educational quality through performance indicators for
school practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 101-126.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (1998). Review of the Education Department. Hong Kong:
The Government Printer.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2003). Enhancing school development and accountability
through school self-evaluation and external school review. EMB Circular No. 23/2003.
June 12, 2003.
Gamage, D. T. and Pang, N. S. K. (2003). Leadership and management in education:

developing essential skills and competencies. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Gamage, D. T. and Pang, N. S. K. (2006). Facing the challenges of the 21st century:
Preparation of school leaders in Australia and Hong Kong. Educational Research
Journal, 21(1), 21-46.
MacBeath, J., Jakobsen, L., Meuret, D., Schratz, M. (2000). Self-evaluation in European
Schools: a Story of Change. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Ministry of Education. (1984). School self-evaluation. Victoria: Ministry of Education.
Pang, N. S. K., MacBeath, J., and McGlynn, A. (2004). Self-evaluation and School
Development. School Education Reform Series No.19. Hong Kong: The Faculty of
Education of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Institute of
Pang, N. S. K. (2006a). Schools as Learning Organizations. In J. C. K. Lee, and M. Williams,
(Eds.), School Improvement: International Perspectives (pp. 65-86). New York: Nova
Science Publishers Inc.
Pang, N. S. K. (Ed.). (2006b). Globalization: Educational research, change and reforms.
Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, the Hong Kong Educational Research
Association and the Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research.
Pang, N. S. K. (2006c). Managing school change through self-evaluation in the era of
globalization. In N. S. K. Pang (Ed.), Globalization: Educational research, change and
reforms (pp. 293-313). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, the Hong Kong
Educational Research Association and the Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research.
Pang, N. S. K. (2007). The continuing professional development of principals in Hong Kong.
Frontiers of Education in China, 2(4), 605-619.
Quality Assurance Division. (2002). Performance Indicators for Hong Kong Schools. Hong
Kong: Education Department.
Rudd, P. and Davies, D. (2000). Evaluating school self-evaluation. Paper presented at the
British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, September 7-
10, 2000.
Scottish Office. (2002). How good is our school? Self-evaluation using performance
indicators. Edinburgh: the Scottish Office of Education and Industry Department.
Chapter 7
SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENTS (SBA):

IMPLEMENTATION AND CHALLENGES
IN THE MALAYSIAN CONTEXT
Suan Yoong
Educational Testing Center, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
National examinations are important annual events in Malaysia. This paper briefly
provides a critical review of the assessment system currently used in Malaysia, outlines
the effects of over-obsession with examinations, provides an overview of the Ministry of
Education’s efforts to dilute the obsession with examinations, reviews the proposed
implementation of school-based assessment, and explains the dominant forces shaping
educational assessments in Malaysia, above all taking into account the cultural contexts.
Keywords: School-based assessment, high-stakes assessment.
1. INTRODUCTION
National examinations are important annual events in Asia, especially when the stakes
are high in determining entry into premier universities. Come examination time, it has
become a common sight in many East Asian cities to see large crowds of parents or relatives
waiting in the vicinity of the examination halls, giving moral and material support to their
loved ones who are taking the examination. In fact, around examination time it is not
uncommon to see parents readying their children for the last dash through the “dreaded and
stressful” hurdles of examinations. They may do this by preparing “dietary tonics and
fortifying medicines” (e.g., jinseng) and other food essences to supplement the examinee’s
diet, or by extending this “fortifying culture” in the form of supplementary tutoring by
ferrying students to and from private tuition centers. Indeed, the glaring presence and
94 Suan Yoong
vigorous growth of these cram schools, designed purely for examination preparation in Japan,
South Korea, Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore and Malaysia, is
further testimony to the presence of East Asia’s examination-oriented culture (Bray, 2003;
Cheng, 1990; 1995; Chew and Leong, 1995; Foondun, 1992; 1998; Harnisch, 1994; Hussein,
1987; Kim, 2000; Kwok, 2004; Rohlen, 1980; Sorensen, 1994; Zeng, 1999). The
internationally renowned “boulevard" of tuition centers on Nanjing Street, near the Taipei
Train Station in Taiwan, is perhaps the most vivid example of this culture (Chen, 1996).
Come D-day and the announcement of examination results, the local media rush to flash news
reports that may highlight the most successful high schools, glorify outstanding individual
performances, and present ranking tables that compare school performances.
Of course, learning cultures in other parts of the world are also to some degree
examination-oriented. However, in East Asia this phenomenon and its side-effects are more
pronounced, and thus here especially they are felt to warrant a closer examination. The
extraordinary emphasis placed by East Asian students and parents on examinations is also one
of the pre-eminent characteristics of the educational system in Malaysia. While the
examination orientation has been a force driving many students to excel in their studies, this
obsession has also created both educational and social problems. Many Malaysian educators,
practitioners, curriculum developers and policy makers have long recognized the negative
impacts and detrimental effects of over-obsession with high-stake assessments, and have
criticized such practices on the grounds that they distort the basic objectives of education.
Like a record playing over and over again, these concerns have been publicly voiced year in
and year out, especially after public examination results are splashed in the print media.
This paper briefly provides a critical review of the assessment system currently used in
Malaysia, outlines the effects of the national assessment system, provides an overview of the
advantages and disadvantages of an over-obsession with examinations, reviews the
implementation of the school-based assessment (SBA) system in Malaysia, and explains the
dominant forces shaping educational assessments in Malaysia, with a particular emphasis on
the cultural contexts.
2. THE MALAYSIAN EDUCATIONAL AND EXAMINATION SYSTEM

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, being 66% Bumiputra (mainly Malays plus a small
proportion of other indigenous groups such as Ibans, Kadazans and Bidayuh), 25% Chinese,
8% Indian (Hindu), and 1% other ethnicities (Malaysia, 2006). This Southeast Asian country
has inherited a pluralistic system of education from its colonial master, England, one that
mirrors to a large extent the legacy of the system in Great Britain. The difference is that, as in
most Asian countries, the educational system of Malaysia is highly centralized under the full
control of the Ministry of Education (MOE).
The educational system in Malaysia is essentially three-tiered—primary, secondary and
tertiary education—with the tiers linked to each other through a series of formal, nationally-
conducted public exams (see Figure 1). At the age of 6 plus, Malaysian children begin a
formal primary education that will last for 6 years. Malay, Chinese and Tamil government
primary schools exist side by side, each using their respective mother-tongues as the main
medium of instruction. Government secondary schools, which use Malay as the main medium
School-Based Assessments (SBA) 95
of instruction, offer 3 years of lower secondary and 2 years of upper secondary education.
Students are streamed into academic or technical and vocational tracks at upper secondary
levels. Pre-university education (sixth form or matriculation classes) is offered in selected
secondary schools for 2 more years for students wishing to enter government-sponsored
public universities.
Figure 1. Malaysian Educational System and Examinations.
2.1. Assessments and Public Obsessions
Students completing primary education must sit for the UPSR (Primary School
Assessment) Examination. After completing their lower secondary education, they must take
the PMR (Lower Secondary Assessment) Examination. Upon completing their upper
secondary education, students in the academic and technical tracks will sit for the SPM
(Malaysian Certificate of Education) Examination (equivalent to the British O-level
examination, now referred to as the GCSE), while students in the vocational track will sit for
the SPMV (Malaysian Certificate of Education -Vocational) Examination. Students at pre-
university levels must sit for either the STPM (Higher School Certificate) Examination
(equivalent to the British A-level examination) or for matriculation examinations accredited
by the local universities.
All public examinations at the end of the various levels, namely primary, lower
secondary, upper secondary, and pre-university/matriculation, are controlled and administered
by the Malaysian Examination Syndicate (MES) set up by the Ministry of Education.
Although these public examinations were initially designed for selection purposes, student
96 Suan Yoong
promotions through primary to upper secondary grades were made automatic when Malaysia
instituted 11-year free universal education. However, SPM results will determine whether or
not students can further their education in government pre-university or matriculation classes,
while the STPM matriculation exams remain the major selection examinations for entry into
local government universities.
Although promotion of students from grade to grade is automatic until the secondary
level, the obsession with public examinations remains very great in Malaysia. Education as a
social activity carries with it, after all, the social values specific to particular societies and
cultures. Yet while in many societies having a prestigious career requires attending an elite
university, in Malaysia (and countries like it) attending an elite university means passing
examinations at the end of every tier, and ultimately passing the university entrance
examination with a high enough grade. Furthermore, in order to pass the latter with a high
enough grade to enter one of the best schools, students must begin preparing at an early age
(Feiler, 1991). The final prize of an elite higher education being so attractive, the socio-
cultural value of assessment results over-ride their academic value. For example, though the
UPSR and PMR have since been designed as diagnostic examinations, their results are still
used primarily as a basis for channeling students into premier secondary schools or streaming
them into or onto academic or technical-vocational tracks at the upper secondary level
(Ministry of Education, 2004). Thus the SPM and STPM are high-stakes exams that
determine entry into national universities and/or local private universities and colleges with
overseas university collaboration programs. Through a policy of rewards and other forms of
recognition dating back to the colonial era, education has, in other words, become the most
significant instrument in determining one's future job (career) and consequent social status.
Students therefore need to overcome a series of examination hurdles in their pursuit of the
final prize, and this “scramble” to gain entry into premier elitist schools starts from an early
age. It is only natural that examinations gained real legitimacy in Malaysia as a reliable
means of facilitating and regulating upward social mobility.
2.2. Chinese High Schools
Apart from the public secondary schools, there also exist 60 privately-managed Chinese
independent high schools where most subjects are taught in Chinese. About 20% of the
students who completed primary education in public Chinese primary schools continue their
education in Chinese independent high schools. Chinese independent high schools offer 3
years of Junior Middle and 3 years of Senior Middle education. Upon completing each tier of
high school education, students must sit for the UEC (Unified Examination Certificate for
Chinese Schools) Examination conducted by a private Examination Board that is itself set up
by a united Chinese school community organization, the Dong Jiao Zong. The Senior Middle
UEC is recognized by over 300 universities and colleges around the world. With the UEC
results, independent high school students can further their studies in overseas universities,
especially in Taiwan, China, Japan, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia
and New Zealand, or enter local private colleges which have twinning programs with
overseas universities. Some Chinese independent high schools offer dual programs, teaching
in both Malay and Chinese, so that the students can sit for the PMR, SPM, STPM and/or
UEC.
The UEC is an equally high-stakes exam as far as the students and parents of Chinese
independent high schools are concerned, since it offers the opportunity for students to gain
entry into overseas universities in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia
and New Zealand. Moreover, the Chinese independent high schools are also more stringent in
their automatic promotion policy, retaining students longer at each grade level if they fail to
perform adequately at that level. A significant number of premier Chinese independent high
schools also control their student intake by conducting entrance exams and only admitting the
top students from Chinese public primary schools. Thus an extraordinary emphasis is placed
on education in Malaysia and especially by Chinese students and parents, necessitating a
high-stakes examination system.
3. THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF THE EXAMINATION ORIENTATION

Public exams in Malaysia are essentially assessments of achievement in a number of core
and elective subjects, focusing mainly on cognitive aspects of learning based on the national
curriculum. Because the educational system is intensely competitive and hierarchical, only a
small percentage of students are selected for the top stream and an even smaller percentage
making it into a local university. For the Malaysian Chinese there is an added element: the
Confucian heritage influences their perception of public examinations. For over a thousand
years, formally conducted public examinations in China have given millions of families hope
for a better future for their children and grandchildren, even though extremely few have
fulfilled this hope (Ho, 1986; Lee, 1996). Upward social mobility has long been achieved in
China primarily through education. The reliance on examinations, closely tied to the
Confucian heritage, has thus become deeply embedded in Chinese culture. This traditional
examination-orientation has also been extended to other East Asian countries, notably Japan
and Korea, whose cultures were themselves long ago influenced by Chinese Confucian
culture: hence university entrance exams are important annual events in Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and almost all overseas Chinese communities in the region
(Rohlen, 1980; Sorensen, 1994). It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that an exam-orientation
is the soul of Chinese educational culture, whether inside or outside China (Cheng, 1995).
Furthermore, this ethos has been extended from the Chinese community to the other ethnic
groups in Malaysia.
3.1. Pressure to Excel
The consequences of this traditional examination-orientation has had a great impact on

schools in various countries. The pressure to excel has resulted in schools’ attempting to
control their student intake by selecting the most able students ahead of those with learning
difficulties in order to raise or maintain test performance levels. The exam-orientation causes
schools to adopt policies that are only useful for passing high-stakes exams rather than
focusing more generally on skills useful in helping prepare students for later life. Indeed,
“teaching to the test” by focusing intensively on test-preparation activities, using test-
98 Suan Yoong
preparatory texts and past test papers is a distinct instructional style that can be seen at all
levels in most Malaysian schools.
The obsession with teaching-to-the-test has also led to the phenomenon of curriculum
"narrowing" on the part of teachers (William, 2001; quoted in Gregory and Clarke, 2003),
that is, de-emphasizing or neglecting subject areas not tested or emphasized on exams, and
precluding any supplementary curricula that encourage students’ all-round development.
Classroom instructional and assessment strategies that mirror the content and format of the
examination tend to be emphasized, thus leaving significant portions of the “non-examinable”
content untaught or quickly skimmed through. Concerned educators worry that subject areas
not tested (for instance, fine arts, physical education, music, and other “low-stakes” subjects)
are accorded less class time or set aside altogether. Malaysian schools in particular are also
devoting non-critical subject times to examination subjects, even in the early grades.
3.2. Exam-Orientation in Instructional Strategy and Private Tuition
However, public examinations are obviously overly simplistic, overly objective,

reductionist and thus very limited; these paper-and-pencil assessments tend to measure only a
“myopically defined, narrow, test-defined set of skills” (Madaus and Clarke, 2001; quoted in
Horn, 2003). They often fail to measure higher cognitive skills, a vital part of a person’s
complex mind and personality. Public exams have been criticized for promoting rote
memorizing of facts on the part of students, rather than problem-solving skills or (of course)
creativity. Critics argue that this “spoon-fed” education legitimized by the examination
culture produces students who can only regurgitate uncritically what they have acquired
through rote learning. Such practices not only hamper real intellectual growth but mean the
assessment is less able to select students with active, independent, creative minds, since those
who succeed on exams may have passed by means of memorizing standard answers to
stereotyped examination questions.
This exam-orientation in instructional strategy has also led teachers to teach in ways that
contradict the notions of sound educational practice, resulting in the “de-professionalization”
of the teachers themselves. It is a common observation that practicing teachers who have been
trained to teach problem-solving strategies are compelled by examination pressure to teach
the subject matter in science and mathematics as knowledge to be memorized rather than as
concepts to be applied to real problem-solving or inquiry. Similarly, science laboratory
experiment sessions have also been compromised by the drive to prepare students for public
examinations. In effect, high-stakes assessment brings with it a "default" philosophy of
education that “holds in high regard a narrow bundle of knowledge and skills”
(Gunzenhauser, 2003) to be memorized. Because of the power of this default philosophy,
teachers in the exam-orientation climate may find themselves doing things that fall short of
their visions of themselves as true educators, such as spending extra time drilling students on
practice tests, de-emphasizing or eliminating untested subject matter, or teaching to the test
(Jones, Jones, Hardin, Chapman, Yarborough, and Davis, 1999).
Critics have also charged that over-obsession with exams is draining the fun out of
schooling, and placing undue pressure on young children by increasing their levels of anxiety,
stress, and fatigue. The anxiety has driven the majority of them to attend test preparation
activities such as personal tutoring sessions, coaching, and extended test-oriented classes,
which in turn increase the children’s stress and fatigue. The demand for tutoring is spawned
by the exam-oriented learning culture, that is, by the increasingly high levels of competition
for social mobility (Bray, 2003), but also by the multi-faceted relationships between and
among supply and demand patterns in the economy and other factors leading to the
desirability of tutoring jobs (Kwok, 2004). Small wonder then that private tutoring that is
parasitic on daytime schooling has become popular and is developing into a thriving
enterprise in many countries, including more recently Malaysia. Moreover, students who
view the passing of exams as an insurmountable barrier may ultimately drop out of school
early. High-visibility examples of security breaches, rampant cheating in examinations and
test-tampering have also been reported; leakage of examination questions has been reported
as occurring sometimes even at the primary school level in Malaysia (Kong, 2007).
4. DILUTING THE INFLUENCE OF EXAM-OBSESSION:

THE MINISTRY’S EFFORTS
There have been large-scale school and educational reforms initiated at primary and
secondary levels, with the goal of enlarging educational opportunities by reducing the hurdles
at each level of education, minimizing the backwash of public examinations, and fostering
continuous assessment or SBA. Since 1970, the Ministry of Education has initiated
curriculum reforms, notably in 1976, 1983, 1995, and 1999, to enhance the quality of
education by enriching and diversifying the curriculum, focusing on student-centered
pedagogical changes, and stressing outcomes-based learning. However, none of these has
involved any serious attempt to reform the public examination system in Malaysia until
recently.
Malaysia began to democratize its educational system in the early 1990s by introducing a
policy of 11 years of free universal education. This new policy included a change in the way
of grading public examinations at the end of primary (UPSR) and lower secondary (PMR)
school: now the goal of grading would be diagnostic in nature rather than, as before, strictly
serving a selective function—that is, promotion to the educational tier or level. However,
these exams still retained their high-stakes character since their results were still being used to
select students into premier secondary schools and stream them into science, arts, technical or
vocational tracks at the upper secondary levels.
4.1. School-Based Projects and Formative Assessments
Then in 1996 the Ministry of Education introduced the Secondary School Progressive
Assessment or PKSM. This required students who sat for the PMR (lower secondary) and
SPM (upper secondary) examinations to submit coursework output in the form of portfolios
and projects for History, Geography, and Integrated Living Skills and Design. These were
school-based assignments or projects graded by the school teachers following standardized
marking schemes supplied by the Malaysian Examination Syndicate (MES), and the grades
were submitted to the MES to be included in the final stage of PMR or SPM grading. Similar
practices had also been instituted by the Chinese Independent Schools Examination Board for
100 Suan Yoong
the UEC examination. For the PMR examination, oral assessments are also planned for Malay
and English languages, while practical assessment is planned for science. Unfortunately,
grade inflation and cheating in the form of non-authentic or plagiarized work are so
widespread that the school-based assignments or oral practice sessions have been criticized
heavily by the public. Teachers are unhappy because these have also increased their workload
considerably. Moreover, the effect of both practices on reducing examination pressure was
minimal. However, both of them—school-based assignments and oral practice sessions—are
still in use today.
Most of the Ministry’s subsequent efforts seemed to be aimed at circumventing the
system by enhancing the teaching and learning process as a means to reduce the pressure of
final public examinations on students, and to reinforce the importance of consistent learning
throughout the school years. This initiative was promoted through PKBS (School-Based
Progressive Assessments). PKBS was a program of formal assessments in the form of
weekly, monthly or term tests, projects and regular class assignments that were set by the
respective subject teachers and conducted throughout the year, in order to evaluate pupils’
progress at all levels in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. These assessments
were done through classroom observations, orals, and written works. The information from
these non- standardized assessments was used to reinforce the instructional process. However,
teachers were unhappy with this program because their workload was increased considerably.
Moreover, the results of these assessments were neither included in the public examination
grades nor needed for the selection and promotion of students to the next grade. As a result,
the teachers kept reverting to their old ways of teaching to the test.
4.2. The Planned New Role of ICT in Assessment and Smart Schools
Then in 1996, Malaysia began to plan its own Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) as a
dynamic hub for the global ICT industry, in order to leap forward into the information and
knowledge age. The Multimedia Super Corridor is a 15km by 40km area, encompassing the
Kuala Lumpur City Centre and Kuala Lumpur International Airport, which will be developed
as a high growth centre. MSC Malaysia now hosts more than 1000 multinationals, including
foreign-owned and home-grown Malaysian companies, focused on multimedia and
communications products, solutions, services and research and development (MSC Malaysia,
2008). The Malaysian government has equipped core sectors of MSC Malaysia with high-
capacity global telecommunications and logistics networks. Six innovative flagship
applications have been developed in MSC Malaysia to accelerate its growth, among them the
Smart School flagship application (Malaysia, 1997). The Malaysian Smart School Flagship
was premised on the strong belief that information and communications technology is a key
enabler, that it can stimulate a desire to learn in everyone. Deemed one of the most forward-
looking ICT-mediated learning initiatives in the world, the Smart School Flagship was
established in order to reinvent the core teaching-learning processes by integrating ICT with
the curricula, pedagogy, and assessment practices of Malaysia’s schools. The goal would be
to help students learn more effectively and efficiently while simultaneously gaining a
competitive position in an increasingly globalized, ICT-driven market. Computerized
management software was developed to help the “smart schools” manage more efficiently
and effectively the resources and processes required to support teaching-learning functions,
thus enabling students to practice self-accessed and self-directed learning, and making the
teaching-learning process easier, more fun and more effective. The Smart School system was
piloted in 87 schools beginning in 1999, and will have been expanded to include 10,000
schools by 2010.
A key element of the Smart School system is a smart assessment system that involves a
significant departure from the “current assessment system which is characterized by a single
delivery (one session only) at a fixed time of the year to students of a given age group”
(Malaysia, 1997). Within this system, and integrated with ICT, criterion-referenced on-going
assessment would be emphasized to provide a more holistic and accurate picture of a
student’s performance. Teachers, students and parents will be able to access on-line
assessment items as well as get a more accurate picture of a student’s achievement, readiness,
progress, aptitude, learning styles, and abilities. Smart School assessment will be flexible and
learner-friendly, while the quality of the assessment information will be assured by using
multiple instruments and approaches. This will lead to a flexible assessment and certification
system that involves using a combination of classroom-based, school-based, and centralized
assessments, using authentic, alternative and performance-based assessment instruments and
approaches. The Smart School assessment system not only attests to a student’s cumulative
accomplishments but will also promote continued improvement on a lifetime basis.
According to the plan, assessment for achievement tests will be implemented first, and
assessment for readiness, progress and aptitude tests will be developed as teachers grow more
capable in the use of the skills and tools that will be made available to them. The Smart
School management system would have the capability to store assessment records that
document students’ accomplishments during their entire educational career, to be identified
by a single ID (Malaysia, 1997).
However, evaluation of the Smart Schools program revealed that although ICT holds
great promise, the reality in the Malaysia Smart schools can hardly match or reflect the state-
of-the-art in technological advances, and the application of ICT to instruction, assessment,
and testing in the Smart Schools is still in its infancy (MDC, 2004; Frost and Sullivan, 2004).
Therefore, despite these proposed innovative efforts, the smart assessment system has yet to
surface in the Malaysian school system, and even in the pilot Smart schools there seems to
have been no noticeable change in the Malaysian examination culture.
4.3. Blueprint for Educational Development
In 2001 the Ministry of Education unveiled a 10-year educational development plan

(Ministry of Education, 2001), reiterating the need to strengthen SBA as a way to reduce
emphasis on centralized examinations while integrating the elements of criterion-referenced
assessments into existing assessments and strengthening formative evaluation. The practical
assessment of science in the UPSR examination was proposed; SPM would be made an open
certificate examination, allowing students to takes at least 6 core subjects and open up more
electives, with no limit on the number of subjects to be taken (Ministry of Education, 2001:
99).
While this system allows the students to choose examination subjects based on their own
interests and potential, the effort was counter-productive as many students chose to take many
more examination subjects than were required - some as many as 17 per sitting.
102 Suan Yoong
More recently, the Ministry of Education unveiled the Blueprint for Educational
Development 2006-2010 in an effort to reform the educational system and "improve the long-
term international competitive edge of Malaysia” (Ministry of Education, 2006). The
Blueprint is specifically for the Ninth Malaysia Plan: 2006-2010, which stresses that the
implementation of the SBA system will be accelerated to enable continuous evaluation of,
and support for, creativity as well as analytical problem-solving skills (Malaysia, 2006). This
Blueprint specifically notes that “presently emphasis has been placed on summative
evaluation that focuses on student achievements and not on identifying strengths and
weaknesses in teaching-learning” (Ministry of Education, 2006). According to the Blueprint,
the assessment system will be modified so as to make schooling less oriented toward
examinations; this will be done by reducing the number of public examination subjects, while
other subjects will be assessed at the school-based level. The Blueprint also charts the way
toward achieving a new examination reform, a new examination policy that will strengthen
SBA because it will be holistic, task-based and criterion-referenced, and will also promote
character-building.
Specific recommendations include changing the emphasis of public examinations: rather
than content-based they will now be skill/ability-based; they will assess ability rather than
achievement. Also, there will be more room for alternative assessments and for the quality
assurance of assessments, and national benchmark standards will be established (Ministry of
Education, 2006).
5. SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT: THE ROAD MAP

“We will empower teachers to conduct SBA and give them the tools and training to carry
it out effectively…School assessment will be given due recognition and acknowledgement.”
These are the words of Dr. Adi, the Malaysia Examinations Syndicate Director of
Examinations, who delivered the keynote address at a forum on educational assessment in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Adi, 2007; Simrit Kaur, 2007). According to Dr. Adi, the ultimate
aim is to reduce over-reliance on data about students obtained through centralized public
examinations. “There has been too much attention given to public examinations. School is
now looked upon as a process of preparing students for public examinations. School
assessment has lost its significance and the outcome is not taken into account in students’
final grade,” said Dr. Adi. “The focus should not only be on academic aspects. We should
also assess students’ personal and character development and involvement in extra-curricular
activities.” (Bernama, 2007). Accordingly, a new assessment system for schools will be
implemented by 2010, in order to make way for a major change in the Malaysian educational
system: centralized examinations will give way to a combination of centralized examinations
and SBA.
For the first time, Dr. Adi has gone a step further to announce that, following the
proposed introduction of SBA, the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate proposes the
abolishment of two major public examinations – the UPSR (at the end of the primary level)
by 2012 and the PMR (at the end of lower secondary level) by 2015. Five forms of
assessment for students in the national education system have been proposed:
• SCHOOL assessment – planned, developed, conducted, examined and reported by

teachers in schools.
• CENTRAL assessment – involving standardized instruments, data analyses and
guidelines provided by the MES.
• CENTRAL examinations – fully conducted by the MES.
• PSYCHOMETRIC tests – to measure students’ innate abilities.
• PHYSICAL activity assessment –to evaluate and measure students’ performance and
involvement in extra-curricular activities.
Dr. Adi nonetheless noted that this will change the whole culture of knowledge
acquisition in Malaysia, for students may begin to feel that learning can actually be fun.
However, he also said that it would take time, because the transition would require several
stages—from getting input from academicians, teachers, parents and students to choosing the
right methods of assessment in the Malaysian context (Koh, 2007a).
5.1. Public Reactions
Public reactions to the announcement ranged from expressions of full support to those of
having reservations. The following news report is typical:
A parent, V. Vasantha, said she had reservations about teachers being objective when it
came to school-based assessment. Psychometric testing, for example, is something new and
will require training for teachers, or they could come out with "10 conclusions about one
student." And could teachers cope with assessing so many students? There may be adjustment
problems but "We do not want any bias in the grading or assessments, so the standards must
be comparable for schools to want to compete with each other" (Koh, 2007a).
[I’m assuming these news reports were translated by author from Chinese or Malay?] No!
it was actually from the Online news report - Yoong
Many had urged the Education Ministry to be cautious in its implementation of the
system, saying it would really need to depend on teachers’ performance and the guidelines for
all schools when it came to assessment (Chok, 2007; Koh, 2007b, Kong, 2007). "It is good
that it will be more school-based but there should be a guarantee that there is a standard for
all. Some others find hope in the Education Ministry’s plan to reform the assessment system
for students, which will shift the emphasis from examinations to continuous forms of SBA
such as aptitude, personality and diagnostic tests” (Koh, 2007a).
The following excerpt from a local news report records a typical reaction to the recent
proposal to scrap the UPSR and PMR examinations:
“I remember a time when students had to do well enough in Primary school, passing all
the exams before they were allowed to go to Secondary school. And then you had to pass your
SRP before you could move to Form 4. And then our Government decided to make things
easier for students, dumbing down the content of the education, and now we are even thinking
of removing Public Examinations! Do you really trust individual schools to set their own test
and examinations? I don’t. Not that I don’t trust teachers, but it’s more that I don’t trust the
schools. There will be leaks in the papers, and with no proper guidelines for marking and
104 Suan Yoong
grades, what will happen is that on paper the Government will suddenly show how “Smart”
our students are, when in reality our educational system is going down the drain. I think we
should be making our exams harder, getting some quality students out there, not people who
can get an A in English yet have really terrible grammar and not be able to hold a
conversation. Gone are the days when our education meant something, and when students
took exams seriously. Back in the day, you studied for the SRP1 because if you failed, you
would be held back a year!” (Simrit Kaur, 2007)
5.2. A Culture with an Entrenched Examination-Orientation
In Asia, public examinations have always meant an extremely high status for education.
An understanding of the cultural dimensions of East Asian societies, including Malaysia, and
of the role in them of education will prove helpful in understanding the deeply-entrenched
examination-oriented culture in Malaysia, especially when it comes to educational evaluation
or assessment—for this is seen by the community as being very important, as having high
stakes. In Malaysia, different sectors of the community—whether teachers, parents, students,
administrators, businessmen, political leaders, or even professionals—all seem to share a very
similar cultural attitude toward what education should be and how children should be
educated. The fear of losing a competitive edge in the international arena also foster concerns
about the quality of education, the latter being most often cast in terms of education
attainments, competitiveness, world class standards, and academic excellence. Thus, the
Ministry of Education has always focused on enhancing the knowledge, skills and expertise
of future generations: these will be needed to support a knowledge-based economy and
realize Malaysia’s vision of becoming a developed nation by the year 2020.
The centrality of education in East Asian societies with identifiable common goals has
fostered a virtual coalition between parents and teachers in the quest for excellence in
education. As a result, students are required to adapt themselves to the system, and indeed
adaptability is an essential crucial quality in the Asian education process. The dialectics of
work and play, happiness and pain, give and take, tolerance and gain, ease and difficulty, are
deep-rooted in these societies and could explain the rationale for adaptability behind many
educational practices. Cheng (1995) noted that Chinese parents and students prefer to adapt to
the system instead of intervening in the educational process, and thus that they do (like their
children) expect learning to continue beyond school hours. In such a socio-cultural-
educational context, the students have little room for any activities apart from formal
academic learning, and the latter can take place in or out of schools, can extend into private
homes (including those of private tutors) and after-school hours. A clear percentage of
students adapted well and achieved an excellent academic performance. Unfortunately, a
large proportion of those who could not make it were “legitimately” ignored for failing to do
so.
Given the fact of this Malaysian culture with its deeply-entrenched examination-
orientation, it is not surprising that the public generally supports public exams as the best way
to maintain objectivity, higher standards, and stricter accountability in the educational system.
The Malaysian public feels strongly that examinations, while not perfect, are probably the
1
Note: SRP examination was replaced by PMR in the 80s.
best way to hold all students accountable for learning what they are expected to learn during
their school careers. Given this entrenched attitude, it is clear that the Ministry of Education
will have a hard time reducing (let alone eradicating) the public’s obsession with
examinations as the fairest means of student evaluation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
One must be clear about the policy goals of examination reform: know the strengths and
weaknesses of all testing instruments; recognize the political, social, and educational trade-
offs involved in using one form of assessment over another; and, most importantly, make no
demand of any testing instrument for which it was not designed. One-shot assessment, no
matter what the format, cannot address multiple needs (Goertz and Duffy, 2003). Public
examinations are designed to meet certain purposes, notably to provide reliable and
comparable scores for individuals as well as groups. They are cost-efficient in terms of
development, scoring, and administration, and sample a broad set of curriculum objectives
within a limited time frame. In general, the competencies tapped are those that lend
themselves to being assessed in these ways, while aspects of learning that cannot be assessed
under such constrained conditions are not addressed. To design new kinds of assessment
methods as alternative approaches to large-scale assessment for capturing the complexity of
cognition and learning will require breaking out of the current paradigm.
It is now a common practice to characterize student achievement in terms of multiple
aspects of proficiency rather than relying on a single score. It is also possible to chart
students' progress over time instead of simply measuring performance at a particular point in
time. Schools should use multiple paths in evaluating and look for alternative forms of valued
performance. Many of these methods are not yet widely used because they are not easily
understood or packaged in accessible ways. Furthermore, having a broad array of models
does not mean the measurement problem has been solved. There is a need to focus, in
psychometric model-building, on the critical features of achievement that we want to assess.
Information and communication technologies are helpful in removing some of the constraints
that have limited the practice of evaluation in the past, and new ICTs are expanding the types
of constructs that can be tapped through assessment. By enriching assessment situations
through the use of multimedia, interactivity, and control over the stimulus display, it is
possible to evaluate a much wider array of constructs than was previously possible. The
Smart School assessment system offers opportunities in this direction. New capabilities
afforded by technology include directly assessing problem-solving skills, making visible the
sequences of actions taken by learners in solving problems, and modeling complex reasoning
tasks (National Research Council, 2002). Technology also makes possible the simplification
of teachers’ tasks. (Chudowsky and Pellegrino, 2003)
Introducing SBA into the public examination system improves the validity of
assessments. Some important outcomes which cannot be evaluated within the context of a
written examination can readily be assessed through SBA (e.g., practical work, theatres and
workshops, research projects, portfolios of creative work, active artistic or design projects).
SBA must be designed so that evaluations become an integral part of teaching and learning
within school subjects and not an ‘add-on’. There should be no significant increase in the
106 Suan Yoong
workload of teachers. In order to carry out SBA in a rigorous and consistent manner, teachers
will need to receive appropriate training and support. They need to develop a wider range of
assessment skills which will enable them to better facilitate the implementation of SBA.
In the implementation of any educational reform, the capacity of the system to support
change in practice must be addressed. Research on SBA programs shows that clear goals and
incentives are necessary but not sufficient to motivate teachers to reach their school's student
achievement goals. Teacher motivation is also influenced by the presence of various capacity-
building conditions, most obviously the opportunity for meaningful professional
development. In addition, teacher knowledge and skills related to improved instruction are
important (Sloane and Kelly, 2003). Moreover, teacher education must be funded along with
the various complementary testing programs. In other words, schools need knowledge, human
and financial resources to successfully implement any reforms.
The Ministry of Education’s latest effort in examination-system reform will involve a
huge effort to overcome a deeply-entrenched exam-taking culture. Cultural reform is very
difficult to achieve; deeply-entrenched beliefs and practices are hard to eradicate, let alone
transform. The public needs to be more broadly educated about the possible range of testing
and test-interpretation formats, if people are ever going to shake off their traditional concept
of assessment and embrace a new assessment culture that is forward-looking,
psychometrically sound, and humanistic. Such a reform must be accompanied, then, by a
structural change in the society and culture as well as in the educational system. The highly
centralized Malaysian system of education must be further decentralized and democratized,
and schools must be appropriately empowered. This depends, once again, on a clearer
understanding of the deeply-entrenched examination-orientation of Chinese and Malaysian
culture, the tendency to see exam-taking as a kind of one-shot, high-stakes “gamble.”
An example showing that progress in this direction is possible is the PTS (Level One
Assessment) aptitude test, introduced to select grade 3 students so that they might skip grade
4 and proceed directly to grade 5. (This was in line with the new education policy which
stipulated that primary education can be completed in five to seven years.) Pupils were tested
on their abilities and potential in verbal, quantitative and thinking skills. Of course, this PTS
inevitably became a high-stakes test in the eyes of teachers and parents as well as students;
fortunately, due to the pressures it generated, it was discontinued two years later. On the other
hand, allowing almost everyone to enter university does not necessarily reduce examination
pressure, as students will still be competing to get into the best universities. Thus, irrespective
of what changes are made in the assessment mode, the newly-introduced measure always
becomes high-stakes unless there is a strong will to dilute and diversify the incentives and
reward systems that bind upward social mobility so tightly with education. We must be able
to deal with the fact that if and when School-Based Assessments are given a more significant
weight in university entrance selection, they, too, will become relatively high-stakes—but
hopefully relatively less high-stakes than winner-take-all exams.
We are still a long way, in Malaysia, from the goal of overcoming a deeply-entrenched
examination-orientation culture. There are no simple solutions. The key point to keep in mind
is that the final goal of standards and assessment systems is not the race for ever-higher
scores, but the race for students’ solid preparation for the workplace or postsecondary
education. Furthermore, even if the SBA program is increasingly implemented, accountability
remains an important problem to be reckoned with, most notably in the context of the
documented gaps in achievement between students of different economic, ethnic, and racial
backgrounds.
REFERENCES
Adi B. T. (2007). A proposal towards a more holistic education assessment system in
Malaysia. Keynote address at International Conference on Assessment (KLICA) of the
National Educational Assessment System (NEAS): Looking Ahead, organized by the
Examinations Syndicate, Ministry of Education, Malaysia. 7-9 May 2007 at Sunway
Resort Hotel and Spa, Pelaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Bernama. (2007). New Assessment System for Schools To Be Implemented In 2010.
Bernama News Agency, Malaysia. May 17, 2006.
Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for
planners. Paris: UNESCO / IIEP.
Bray, M. (2003). Adverse effects of private supplementary tutoring. Paris: UNESCO / IIEP.
Chen, J. (1996). Cram Culture - A Fresh Look at the Buxiban. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from
http://home.sina.com/sinorama/1196/article2/index.html.
Cheng, K. M. (1995). Excellence in education: is it culture-free? Keynote address presented
at the 9th annual meeting of the Educational Research Association, November, 22–24,
Singapore.
Cheng, K. M. (1990). The culture of schooling in East Asia. In N. Entwistle (Ed.), Handbook
of education ideas and practice (pp. 163-173). London: Routledge.
Chew, S. B., and Leong, Y. C. (Eds.). (1995). Private tuition in Malaysia and Sri Lanka: A
comparative study. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya, Department of Social
Foundations in Education.
Chok S. L. (2007). It takes courage to cut the exam knot. New Straits Times, June 3, 2007.
Chudowsky, N. and Pellegrino, J. W. (2003) Large-scale assessments that support learning:
what will it take? Theory Into Practice, Winter, 2003.
Feiler, B. S. (1991) Learning to bow - Inside the heart of Japan. New York: Ticknor and
Fields.
Foondun, A. R. (1992). Private tuition in Mauritius: The mad race for a place in a ‘five-star’
secondary school. IIEP Research and Studies Programme, Monograph Vol. 8. Paris:
IIEP.
Foondun, A. R. (1998). Private tuition: A comparison of tutoring practices at the primary
level in Mauritius and some South East Asian countries. Bangkok: UNICEF East Asia
and Pacific Regional Office.
Frost and Sullivan. (2004). Benchmarking of the Smart School Integrated Solution. Retrieved
July 15, 2007, from http://www.msc.com.my/smartschool/downloads/benchmarking.pdf.
Goertz, M. and Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and
accountability programs. Theory into Practice, Winter, 2003.
Gregory, K. and Clarke, M. (2003) High-stakes assessment in England and Singapore. Theory
into Practice, Winter, 2003.
Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2003). High-stakes testing and the default philosophy of education
Theory into Practice, Winter, 2003.
Harnisch, D. L. (1994). Supplemental education in Japan: Juku schooling and its implications.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(3), 323-334.
108 Suan Yoong
Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.),

The Psychology of the Chinese People. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Horn, C. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure?
Hussein, M. G. A. (1987). Private tutoring: A hidden educational problem. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 91-96.
Jones, G. M., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarborough, T., and Davis, M. (1999).
The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.
Kim, I. (2000). Private tutoring in Korea: A cultural analysis. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), March 2000,
San Antonia, Texas, USA.
Koh L. C. (2007a) School-based assessment: Thumbs up mostly, but some foresee teething
problems, NST Online. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.nst.com.my/
NST/index_html
Koh, L. C. (2007b). Taking formal education beyond exams. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/SundayInterview/20070304082920/
Article/index_html.
Kong S. H. (2007, September 14). Parents want probe into exam ‘leaks’. The Sun. p.8.
Kwok. P. (2004). Examination-oriented knowledge and value transformation in East Asian
cram schools. Asia Pacific Education Review 2004, 5(1), 64-75.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the
Confucian tradition. In D.A. Watkins and J.B. Biggs, J.B. (Eds), The Chinese Learner:
Cultural, psychological and contextual influences, (pp. 25-41). Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre and Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for the
Madaus, G., and Clarke, M. (2001). The impact of high-stakes testing on minority students. In
M. Kornhaber and G. Orfield (Eds.), Raising Standards or Raising Barriers: Inequality
and High Stakes Testing in Public Education (pp. 85-106). New York: Century
Foundation.
Malaysia, Government of (1997) The Malaysian smart school: An MSC flagship application,
a conceptual blueprint. Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia, Smart School Project
Team.
Malaysia, Government of (2006). The Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010). The Economic
Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department, Putrajaya. 2006. p. 255, Ch.11 on
Enhancing Human Capital. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Government Printing Press.
Ministry of Education. (2001). Pembangunan Pendidikan 2001-2010: Perancangan
Bersepadu Penjana Kecemerlangan Pendidikan. (Educational Development 2001-2010:
Integrated Planning towards Excellence in Education). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2004). The Development of Education: National Report of Malaysia.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2006). Pelan Induk Pembangunan Pendidikan 2006-2010 (Blueprint
for Education Development 2006-2010). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of
Education.
MDC, Multimedia Development Corporation. (2004). Multimedia Super Corridor: Impact

Survey 2004. Multimedia Development Corporation Bhd, MSC Headquarters, Malaysia:
www.msc.com.my.
MSC Malaysia. (2008). MSC Malaysia Status / MSC Malaysia Status Check. Retrieved July
15, 2007, from http://www.mscmalaysia.my/topic/MSC+Malaysia+Status+Companies.
National Research Council. (2002). Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead-
Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rohlen, T. P. (1980). The juku phenomenon: an exploratory essay. Journal of Japanese
Studies, 6(2), 207-242.
Simrit Kaur. (2007, May 9). Assessment to replace UPSR and PMR. The Star.
Sloane, Finbarr C. and Kelly, Anthony E. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs.
Sorensen, C. W. (1994). Success and education in South Korea. Comparative Education
Review, 38(1), 10-35.
Zeng, K. M. (1999). Dragon gate: Competitive examinations and their consequences.
London: Cassell.
Chapter 8
CURRENT ISSUES REGARDING

THE SCHOOL EVALUATION SYSTEM IN JAPAN
Yasuhiko Washiyama
Tokyo Gakugei University, Japan
1. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHOOL

EVALUATION SYSTEM IN JAPAN
Evaluation of schools in Japan was conducted according to the “Local Inspector System”
until the end of World War II, and under the supervision of local “Boards of Education”
thereafter. Rather than actual evaluation, however, these systems were more in the nature of
compliance-oriented supervision and guidance provided to each school on an individual basis,
and with no effects outside the school in question.
School “evaluation” in the true sense of the term has only taken off in Japan in the last 10
years or so. The pursuit of deregulation and decentralization has occasioned a review of the
regulations on school administration, which prescribe the authority held over schools by
Boards of Education. This review has resulted in an expansion of schools’ discretionary
powers, making the concept of “autonomous school administration” a reality. The
introduction of the school councilor system in 2000 brought school administration and
development beyond the limited control of the principal and teaching staff and enabled active
participation by students’ guardians—here defined as their parents or primary caretakers—as
well as the local community. In the context of these trends, the need emerged for a system to
evaluate each school’s autonomous activities and to effect improvements in educational
quality.
As a first step towards promoting evaluation within schools, the “Regulative Standard for
School Establishment” applied by the government to new kindergartens, elementary, junior
and senior high schools was revised in 2002 to include new provisions on “self-inspection
and self-assessment.” Next, a clause to the effect that all schools operating within the
established framework of compulsory education, hereafter called “compulsory education
schools,” should be subjected to external evaluation was included in the 2005 “Basic Policies
for Economic and Fiscal Management and Structural Reform.” In that same year, the Central
112 Yasuhiko Washiyama
Council for Education released its report on “Redesigning Compulsory Education for a New
Era,” which proposed the formulation of guidelines in order to enhance evaluation systems
for schools.
The “Evaluation Guidelines for Compulsory Education Schools” were released in 2006,
marking a new beginning for school evaluation in Japan.
2. EVALUATION GUIDELINES FOR COMPULSORY

EDUCATION SCHOOLS
I would like to introduce three concepts which provide the framework for the Evaluation
Guidelines for Compulsory Education Schools: Goals, Methods and Indicators.
The following four points are listed under “Goals”:
(1) To establish a Plan-Do-Check-Act management cycle, realizing systematic and

continuous improvement in each school through setting goals, monitoring progress
and reviewing initiatives;
(2) To make the results of both self-evaluation and external evaluation public, creating
an open school atmosphere founded on the understanding and involvement of
guardians and the wider community;
(3) To clarify responsibilities for both education and management, enabling schools and
their teachers to discharge their duties to the full and the school’s founding body to
provide support and establish the conditions for operation of schools in accordance
with evaluation results, thereby assuring and enhancing educational quality;
(4) To apply evaluation of lessons and of teaching staff to the development of scholastic
achievement guarantees, clear academic goals and guidelines, and school
administration systems that are directly connected to overall school evaluation
processes.
“Methods” includes the following three points:
(1) Self-evaluation (goal-setting, collecting and consolidating data, implementing

evaluations, producing evaluation reports, identifying points for improvement);
(2) External evaluation (establishing an external evaluation committee, implementing
evaluations, producing evaluation reports);
(3) General information for guardians and community members, and general measures
for improving the school, provided by the school’s founding body.
Ten points are listed as “Indicators”:
(1) Curriculum and academic guidelines; (2) student behavioral guidance; (3) student
career and further education guidance; (4) safety management; (5) health management; (6)
special needs education; (7) organizational operations; (8) teacher training; (9) collaboration
with guardians and members of the local community; (10) facilities.
Current Issues Regarding the School Evaluation System in Japan 113
3. SCHOOL EVALUATION AS A MEANS OF STRUCTURAL REFORM

OF THE EXISTING COMPULSORY EDUCATION SYSTEM
Until recently, evaluation of compulsory education providers was practiced from a

“compliance” perspective. Inspections were carried out to ensure that the curriculum followed
the Education-Ministry-approved course of study, that the required number of class hours was
being offered, and that the school was being operated correctly in accordance with legal
stipulations. Educational quality was maintained and enhanced through the application of
uniform national standards to school “inputs and outputs.”
The recent round of reforms has been characterized by the shift to a quality assurance
approach, focusing on evaluation of educational outcomes.
The initial “input stage” involves laying the foundations for school operations: addressing
legal requirements, setting goals, ensuring fiscal stability, and so on. In the “process stage”
each school must develop autonomous initiatives, assuming greater authority over school
activities, setting specific objectives and finding ways to achieve them in collaboration with
the community. The “outcomes stage” entails continuous and progressive inspection and
evaluation by reference to educational outcomes, addressing matters such as learning
effectiveness and the development of teachers’ professional capabilities.
This process requires the formulation of a new evaluation system within each individual
school. This is to be a three-tiered system comprising the school’s “self-evaluation” of its
own activities and operations by reference to its own educational objectives, “external
evaluation” by students’ guardians, local residents and other stakeholders, and “third party
evaluation” conducted objectively and scientifically by outside groups unfettered by any
association with the school.
The system, then, is founded first and foremost on the “self-evaluation” process. The
combination of quantitative evaluation, based on numerical targets and performance
indicators, with qualitative evaluation that focuses on activity indicators reflects the
importance of properly evaluating educational processes, each child’s degree of development,
stakeholder satisfaction, and the nature of linkages with the wider community.
To date, self-evaluation has been implemented in over 95% of all schools in Japan’s
compulsory education system, while around 80% have undergone external evaluation. It is
believed that an organization will be established to undertake third-party evaluation following
analysis of the outcomes of trial programs conducted in the 2006 and 2007 school years.
The challenge is how to establish school evaluation as part of the Plan-Do-Check-Act
management cycle, ensuring that the system of setting goals, monitoring progress and
reviewing initiatives will generate systematic and ongoing improvement. It is vital that the
items for evaluation, the evaluators themselves, and the results of evaluation all be structured
appropriately. This structuring would clarify what needs to be achieved, by whom, and when,
facilitating strategic improvement in and of schools through across-the-board collaboration.
4. CONCERNS ABOUT THE SCHOOL EVALUATION SYSTEM

While aiming for improvement of educational activity across the board, the central
concern of school evaluation is obviously that of guaranteeing sound scholastic ability on the
part of students. Scholastic ability is thus employed as a principal indicator in the evaluation
process, which highlights the issue of degrees of scholastic achievement.
In April of 2007, a national test of scholastic ability was conducted in Japan for the first
time in 43 years. Students in the sixth year of elementary school and the third year of junior
high school were tested in Japanese and arithmetic/mathematics, with almost all national and
other public school students participating along with 60% of those in private schools.
This test is an important tool for comprehending the true current state of scholastic
achievement in Japan and applying this knowledge in guidance and instruction activities.
However, there is also the potential for this test to be used in ways which are highly
problematic. One such case has already emerged in Adachi Ward, part of the Metropolis of
Tokyo, which has been conducting its own scholastic ability test since before the national test
was instituted. It was revealed that teachers proctoring the test at schools in Adachi Ward had
been communicating answers to students taking the test by means of signals or cues. The
worst-performing area in Tokyo, Adachi Ward authorities had been under pressure to
improve test results. They sought to achieve this goal by making all the schools in their
jurisdiction compete in the test, publishing a ranking of schools based on students’ test
results, reflecting these results in budget allocations to schools, and encouraging families to
refer to the results when choosing schools to attend. The improper conduct during the test on
the part of both teachers and students was a direct outcome of this competition-based
approach.
As this example shows, scholastic ability tests run the risk of being used to exacerbate
competition, generate hierarchies and create disparities between and among schools –
outcomes not envisaged in the original concept of school evaluation. This is an important
problem and one which calls for careful consideration; school administrators must be able to
approach the publication and use of test results in a manner which accords with the spirit of
honest and objective school evaluation.
If asked to identify three more general problems which may arise from the new school
evaluation system, many would name the following: (1) greater disparities between and
among different schools and teachers and more cases of loss of motivation and mental illness
in the teaching profession; (2) encroachment by the evaluation workload on the time teachers
usually spend with their students and on studying and preparing teaching materials; (3) the
treatment of evaluation as a routine practice, carried out as a matter of form, with content
being buried in the demands of paperwork. Measures must be instituted to forestall these
problems.
Evaluation is often thought of as the responsibility of principals, head teachers and other
school administrators, and not the concern of either mid-career or recently-qualified teachers.
However, it is important that evaluation be pursued as a school-wide initiative. Teachers must
look beyond the confines of their own classroom, adopting a broad and multi-layered
perspective which incorporates the overall organizational activities of the school and shares
ideals regarding the school’s direction. Teachers must work together with guardians and
members of the wider community in activities aimed at enhancing not just students’
scholastic ability but also their study habits and lifestyles. The crucial point here is to use the
evaluation process as a means to develop mutual trust and confidence among teachers.
Current Issues Regarding the School Evaluation System in Japan 115
5. MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS

Change is the essential purpose of school evaluation. Teachers change, pupils change,
schools change – all to attain a greater capacity for self-directed learning and research. This
capacity is further strengthened through the development of an open and accessible school
environment, open and accessible to those outside as well as within the school. Understanding
and support are the most powerful forces behind all educational activity. School reform and
changes in the consciousness of students, teachers, guardians, administrators and all school
community members must develop as mutually-defining processes.
Evaluation is characterized by the proximity between evaluators and those being
evaluated. I would like to suggest the following three points as means to maximize this
proximity and make school evaluation a truly meaningful system:
(1) Implementation of “shadowing”: one-day shadowing of each class and each

individual teacher.
(2) A conceptual shift from school evaluation to “school diagnosis.”
(3) Fully developing a collegial spirit among teaching staff through formative
evaluation.
Shadowing refers to a practice whereby evaluators stay close to, or shadow, those being
evaluated, facilitating close observation. Shadowing of a class group, for instance, enables
assessment not only of in-class lessons but also of pupils’ attitudes, movements and everyday
interactions during breaks and meal times. Over a two-day period, the evaluator can thereby
gain a complete picture of the teacher’s and students’ educational conduct, which will
contribute to the envisaging of current conditions and challenges for the school as a whole.
The workings of a school, after all, are the sum of its individual teachers. Viewing each
teacher’s activities in their entirety helps to bring concrete issues into focus, thus enabling
formative evaluation based on dialogue, generating relationships of trust, and making it
possible to conduct evaluation in accordance with each teacher’s individual characteristics
and distinctive qualities. Surely there is no greater force for improvement than this.
CONCLUSION
School evaluation must not be limited to mere questionnaire-based data collection. It is
crucial that external interests and third parties be included in practice-based school diagnosis
activities, the results of which are used in feedback to teachers; here opportunities must be
provided for expression of opinions and criticism of the results, to further enable their
verification. Senior high schools in Tokyo now publish evaluation details produced through
this kind of consensual process, an experiment which appears to have been received
favorably.
The great Chinese thinker Laozi said that “the highest good is like water.” Ideally, the
Plan-Do-Check-Act evaluation cycle should also be like water: fluid and supple, able to move
unhampered through any location, following the current to permeate the lowest spaces. The
flow of this highest good to schoolchildren, to teachers, to guardians and to community
members is the quintessential ideal of all educational evaluation. Ultimately, in the river’s
lower reaches, it is the task of school principals to bring everything together – both problems
and achievements – and use them to put a new cycle into motion.
REFERENCES
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan. (2007). Regulative
Standard for School Establishment, Retrieved September 28, 2007, from
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/18/03/06032817/003.htm.
Chapter 9
TEACHER EVALUATION IN THAILAND:

CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Pruet Siribanpitak
Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to examine the current number and qualifications of
public school teachers, and to explore the current issues in, and future prospects of,
public school teacher evaluation in Thailand. Most secondary school teachers in Thailand
are in fact public school teachers who have completed their undergraduate study; ninety-
two percent of them have completed a bachelor’s degree. Teacher evaluations have
become more important since 1999. There are three types of teacher evaluation for public
school teachers: (1) Induction Program Evaluation, (2) Annual Performance Evaluation,
and (3) Academic Status Evaluation. The importance of teacher evaluation is reflected in
the controversies regarding divergent criteria for performance-based evaluation and
professional judgment in performance assessment. The Teacher Civil Service
Commission-Ministry of Education has set up a taskforce to review the teacher
evaluation criteria. It is likely to accept three new dimensions: (1) teachers’ discipline,
morality and ethical conduct; (2) quality of teaching and student development; and (3)
results of teaching and student development.
Keywords: Thailand, public schools, teacher evaluation, basic education.
1. INTRODUCTION
Teacher Evaluation in Thailand has gained increasing importance since 1999, a fact
which is partly attributed to the public’s demand for accountability in education. The 1999
National Education Act acknowledged the importance of educational standards and quality
assurance, and it is clear that the improvement of teacher evaluations will be beneficial to
educational quality and students as well as to the society at large.
118 Pruet Siribanpitak
2. OBJECTIVES
The purposes of this paper are to examine the quantity and qualifications of teachers and
the current issues in teacher evaluation* and to explore the future prospects of teacher
evaluation in Thailand, emphasizing the development of public school teachers.
3. QUANTITY AND QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS

3.1. Number of School Teachers in Basic Education in 2001-2005
The total number of school teachers in basic education** in Thailand gradually increased
during the academic years of 2001 to 2005 from 633,818 teachers in 2001 to 680,272 teachers
in 2005. (See Table 1).
Table 1. Number of Teachers in Basic Education, (Academic Year) 2001-2005
Academic Years
Responsible Agencies
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Ministry of Education 588,899 568,283 532,814 597,680 614,481
Ministry of Tourism and Sports 1,128 116 1,131 983
Ministry of Culture 12,538 886 980 1,009
Ministry of Interior 42,923 44,054 57,408 72,142 61,863
- Department of Local 29,407 29,792 43,286 57,720 47,372
Administration
- BMA 13,516 14,262 14,135 14,422 14,491
Ministry of Social Development and 755 779 106
Human Security
Royal Thai Police 1,805 1,669 1,778 1,830
Total 633,818 650,548 593,648 674,490 680,272
Source: Office of the Education Council. (2006). Education in Thailand: 2005–2006. Bangkok: Office
of the Education Council. * School teachers in basic education. ** Basic education includes: Early
Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, and others (except higher
education).
3.2.Number of Faculty in Higher Education, (Academic Year) 2001-2005
The total number of teachers in higher education increased steadily during the academic
years 2001-2005, from 42,080 teachers in 2001 to 61,395 teachers in 2005. (See Table 2).
3.3. Number and Qualifications of School Teachers, (Academic Year) 2004
Most of the school teachers (in basic education) are public school teachers. In the
academic year 2004, there were 418,880 public school teachers as opposed to only 51,598
private school teachers. (See Table 3).
Teacher Evaluation in Thailand 119
Table 2. Number of Faculty in Higher Education, (Academic Year) 2001-2005
Responsible Academic Years

Agencies 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Ministry of 42,080 42,541 46,992 57,159 60,262
Education
Ministry of Tourism 874 988
and Sports
Ministry of Culture 176 145
Total 42,080 42,541 46,992 58,209 61,395
Source: Office of the Education Council. (2006). Education in Thailand: 2005-2006 Bangkok: Office of
the Education Council.
Table 3. Percentage and Number of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in

Thailand by Degrees Earned, and Types of School, (Academic Year) 2004
Degrees Earned
Types of School Less than Bachelor’s Master’s Degree Total
Bachelor’s Degree Degree or Higher
5 91 4 100
Total
(23,827) (427,037) (19,632) (470,496)
Public Schools 4 92 4 100
(16,843) (348,358) (17,679) (418,880)
Poverty Enrollment
Low - - - -
High - - - -
Community Type
Urban 4 92 4 100
(6,260) (147,112) (6,942) (160,314)
Suburban and Rural 4 92 4 100
(9,246) (204,754) (9,455) (223,445)
Other 4 92 4 100
(1,337) (32,492) (1,292) (35,121)
Grade Level
Elementary* 8 88 4 100
(24,890) (285,992) (12,606) (323,488)
Secondary 2 65 33 100
(2,579) (80,248) (40,802) (123,629)
Private Schools 13 83 4 100
(6,984) (42,679) (1,935) (51,598)
Grade Level
Elementary 16 81 3 100
(6,253) (31,985) (1,935) (39,289)
Secondary 6 87 7 100
(731) (10,694) (884) (12,309)
Definitions: a. Elementary grade level refers to Kindergarten to Grade 6. b. Secondary grade level
refers to Grades 7-12. c. Private schools are those schools that are not primarily funded nor
administered by the local or central government. d. Community type refers to the whole
community in the case of small provinces with only one school district. * Includes those teachers
who teach lower secondary school classes in elementary schools.
Source: Siribanpitak, P. and Boonyananta, S. (2006). The Qualifications of the Teaching Force in
Thailand. In: A Comparative Study of Teacher Preparation and Qualifications in Six Nations. R.
M. Ingersoll (ed.), p. 89. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Concerning the qualifications of school teachers, most Thai elementary and secondary
school teachers completed their undergraduate study. Ninety-one percent completed a
bachelor’s degree, 5% held less than a bachelor’s degree and 4% completed a master’s degree
or higher. There are pronounced differences between public schools and private schools. The
data also shows that students in private schools had less access to qualified teachers. For
example, 92% of all public school teachers completed a bachelor’s degree as opposed to 83%
of private school teachers, and 5% held less than a bachelor’s degree as opposed to 13% of
private school teachers. Moreover, about 33% of all public secondary school teachers held a
master’s degree or higher, as compared with 7% of private secondary-school teachers. (See
Table 3).
The data in Table 3 also reveals that community type (urban or suburban) does not have a
significant impact on teacher qualification levels. In other words, there is virtually no
difference between suburban and urban schools regarding the percentage of teachers with
degrees. For example, about 92% of all teachers in urban, suburban and rural areas held a
bachelor’s degree and about 4% held a master’s degree or higher. This means that the
qualifications of teachers in the 175 educational service areas (school districts) in Thailand
are roughly equivalent.
On the other hand, teachers at different grade levels in public schools do tend,
predictably, to have different qualifications. For example, about 33% of all secondary school
teachers have completed a master’s degree or higher, as opposed to only 4% in the case of
elementary school teachers.
4. TEACHER CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK

AND SALARY STRUCTURE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
When individuals join the teaching profession, they are placed on a salary scale that
corresponds to their qualifications and prior experience and the civil service salary structure.
The base level monthly salary for teachers with a four-year bachelor’s degree is 7,360 Baht
(190 US$), and 9,320 Baht (233 US$) for teachers with a master’s degree. By comparison,
other professionals such as doctors and engineers typically earn about 30,000 – 50,000 Baht
per month (750-1,250 US$).
The Teachers and Educational Personnel Act of B.E. 2547 (2004) proposed a new salary
structure, using a six-scale teacher classification framework based on academic status. The
classifications, moving upward, are as follows: assistant teachers, teachers, experienced
teachers, highly experienced teachers, expert teachers, specialized teachers. The entry
requirement for assistant teachers is either a five-year or a 4+1 year of post-secondary pre-
service teacher training. An assistant teacher’s salary is 8,360 Baht per month (209 US$), and
a teacher’s salary is 11,470 Baht per month (287 US$). Teachers who get promoted to a
higher level (higher academic status) based on their performance receive an extra monthly
allowance. The scale for the additional monthly allowances is 3,500 Baht (88 US$), 5,600
Baht (140 US$), 9,900 Baht (248 US$), and 13,000 Baht (325 US$) for experienced teachers,
highly experienced teachers, expert teachers, and specialized teachers respectively (See Table
4).
Table 4. New Teacher Classification Framework, 2004
Monthly Salaries Extra Monthly

Position Academic Status
Beginning Highest Allowance
1. Assistant Teacher - 8,360 (THB) - -
(209 US$)
2. Teacher - 11,470 (THB) - -
(287 US$)
2.1 Experienced 14,810 (THB) 32,250 (THB) 3,500 (THB)
Teacher (370 US$) (806 US$) (88 US$)
2.2 Highly
18,180 (THB) 45,620 (THB) 5,600 (THB)
Experienced
(455 US$) (1,141 US$) (140 US$)
Teacher
2.3 Expert 22,230 (THB) 48,600 (THB) 9,900 (THB)
Teacher (556 US$) (1,215 US$) (248 US$)
2.4 Specialized 27,450 (THB) 61,860 (THB) 13,000 (THB)
Teacher (686 US$) (1,547 US$) (325 US$)
Source: The Ministry of Education, 2006; OBEC, 2004.
Note: The 2004 rate of exchange was about $1.00 US = 40 Thai Baht
With this new framework the teacher will earn a higher monthly salary than with the
previous framework (See Table 5). The aim is not only to attract talented high school students
into pre-service teacher training programs but also to attract talented graduates into the
teaching profession.
Table 5. Previous Teacher Classification Framework
Position (Baht) Salary Scale Monthly Salaries

Teacher (Level 1) 1-3 4,230-13,550
Teacher (Level 2) 2-4 5,050-16,650
Instructor (Level 1) 3-5 6,210-20,340
Instructor (Level 2) 5-6 (7)* 9,320-25,180 (30,710)*
Instructor (Level 3) 6-8 (9)* 11,450-43,440 (46,280)*
Source: The Ministry of Education, 2006; OBEC, 2004.
*
The salary scale (and thus monthly salary) will be upgraded to a higher level according to the
teacher’s academic performance.
5. TYPES OF TEACHER EVALUATION

There are three types of teacher evaluation for public school teachers: (1) Induction
Program Evaluation, (2) Annual Performance Evaluation, and (3) Academic Status
Evaluation.
Induction Program Evaluation
According to the Teachers and Educational Personnel Act of B.E.2547 (2004), all new
recruited public school teachers shall be appointed as “assistant teachers” for two years.
During this two-year period, the new teachers must participate in the induction program and
must be evaluated by the school committee in order to get promoted to the position of
“teacher.”
Annual Performance Evaluation
According to the Administrative Procedures for Civil Servants Act of B.E. 2538 (1995),
all public school teachers’ performances shall be evaluated every six months to determine
whether a salary increase is justified. There are two categories of salary increase:
1) Regular Increase, which is a half-step salary increase, and

2) Special Increase, which is a one-step salary increase.
Academic Status Evaluation
According to the Teachers and Educational Personnel Act of B.E. 2547 (2004), all public
school teachers shall be promoted to a higher academic status (rank). There are four titles to
mark academic status: (1) Experienced Teacher, (2) Highly Experienced Teacher, (3) Expert
Teacher, and (4) Specialized Teacher. Teachers who get promoted to a higher academic rank
will get a higher level of monthly extra allowance. (See Table 4)
6. CURRENT ISSUES IN TEACHER EVALUATION

The importance of teacher evaluation is reflected in the controversies regarding
evaluation criteria and procedures.
6.1. Criteria for Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation
According to the National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999), the Teacher Civil Service
Commission, Ministry of Education (TCSC- MOE) is the central organization responsible for
administering teachers.
The personnel administration will be based on the principle of decentralization to
educational service areas and schools.
A central concern in creating criteria for performance-based teacher assessment,
however, is one that has plagued teacher assessment for decades and has often been described
as intractable: How to define “good teaching” in a way that is appropriate for assessment
purposes and yet remains faithful to the art and science of teaching as it is experienced by
knowledgeable practitioners?
The Teachers’ Civil Service Commission set up the following criteria for performance-
based teacher evaluation. This will include three areas:
1. Discipline, Morality and Ethical Conduct
1.1. Good discipline

1.2. Good behavior
1.3. Appropriate way of life
1.4. Faith in the teaching profession
1.5. Sense of responsibility to the profession
2. Performance, Quality and Competency
2.1. Core competencies
(1) Results and achievement oriented

(2) Good record of service
(3) Self-development
(4) Teamwork
2.2. Specific competencies
(1) Learning (curriculum) design

(2) Learner (student) development
(3) Classroom management
(4) Analytical and synthetical competence (2)
3. Performance Results and Impact
3.1. Learning (classroom) management

3.2. Academic (curriculum) development
3.3. Impact on learners (students’ achievement)
3.4. Academic papers (at least one paper) (1)
3.5. Impact on (results for) teacher’s learning (2)
3.6. Academic papers (at least 2 papers including 1 research paper) (2)
3.7. Impact on (results for) the Community (3)
3.8. Academic papers (at least 2 papers, including 1 research and 1 development paper (3)
The Teacher Civil Service Commission also set the minimum scores for promotion to the
next level as follows:
(1)
Additional criteria for highly experienced teachers.
(2)
Additional criteria for expert teachers.
(3)
Additional criteria for specialized teachers.
Currently, there is some controversy regarding the assessment criteria for the academic
paper – which is required for highly experienced teachers, expert teachers, and specialized
teachers. The arguments are important because they reflect upon both the quality of teaching
and students’ achievement.
6.2. Professional Judgment in Teacher Performance Assessment
According to Shinkfield and Stufflebeam (1995), specification of the assessment criteria

is an important part of developing any performance assessment, but the success of the effort
as a whole can only be evaluated in light of the ability of assessors to use the criteria to reach
technically and professionally defensible conclusions. Unlike traditional multiple-choice
testing, where most of the professional judgment comes into play during the pre-
administration phase of test development, professional judgment in performance assessment
is required in both the development and implementing phases of the assessment.
In Thailand, the quality of this professional judgment affects many aspects of the
assessment’s validity, including fairness, cognitive complexity, and construct representation.
7. FUTURE PROSPECTS OF TEACHER EVALUATION

The Teacher Civil Service Commission has set up a taskforce to review the teacher
evaluation criteria. This taskforce is likely to utilize three new dimensions:
1. Teacher Discipline, Morality and Ethical Conduct

(Remains the same)
2. Quality of Teaching and Student Development
2.1. Teacher’s report on teaching and student development

2.2. Lesson plan
2.3. Test/ test analysis
2.4. Student worksheet
2.5. Teacher’s report on learners
2.6. Student learning report
2.7. School supervisor’s memo
2.8. Assessor’s report
2.9. Other test results/ reports
3. The Results of Teaching and Student Development
3.1. Results of the national education test

3.2. Results for internal and external quality assurance
3.3. Results for academic development
3.4. Results for student assistance (1)
3.5. Results for peer assistance (2)
3.6. Results for analysis, synthesis, and instructional development research or
3.7. Instructional innovation or
3.8. National or international awards for teaching and learning (2)
(1) Additional criteria for Highly Experienced Teachers

(2) Additional criteria for Expert Teachers and Specialized Teachers
The proposed minimum scores for promotion using the new criteria are as follows:
Minimum Scores
Total Highly
Criteria Experienced Expert Specialized
Score Experienced
Teacher Teacher Teacher
Teacher
1. Discipline, morality, and pass/ pass/ pass/ pass/
-
ethical conduct fail fail fail fail
2. Quality of teaching and
100 60% 70% 80% 90%
student development
3. Results of teaching and
100 60% 70% 80% 90%
student development
8. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of teacher evaluation to promote both the career growth of teachers
and quality education assumes and reinforces the authentic performance evaluation of
teachers. The most workable strategies for teaching evaluation involve establishing more
appropriate criteria, more effective procedures and better professional judgment on the part of
performance assessors. Qualified assessors are after all necessary in order for teacher
evaluation to be successful. Under-qualified assessors pose an important problem. Another
significant problem is that of establishing criteria which are not too subjective. Both of these
factors could result in too many teachers either meeting or not meeting the criteria, achieving
or not achieving the minimum scores for promotion.
There is growing agreement today that there may be a set of particular teacher behaviors
which taken together tend to promote student learning. However, according to Shinkfield and
Stufflebeam (1995), the question of the validity of basing teacher effectiveness on student
learning has led to more disagreement than any other issue in the history of teacher
evaluation. Thus by the early 1970s the battle lines were drawn between those arguing against
and those supporting student learning as a basis for teacher evaluation.
The main challenges facing those concerned with teacher evaluation are the purpose of
the evaluation itself and the desired outcomes. The problem that has dogged both
theoreticians and practitioners in how the evaluation can achieve both organizational ends and
increase the skills and self-esteem of teachers. If the goals of teacher evaluation are decided
by external authorities and the behavioral objectives and anticipated outcomes set by them,
then the evaluation will be summative orientation. But, if summative evaluations are used, the
organizational context may be ignored.
In contrast, the type of evaluation procedure which emphasizes professional development
will involve the teachers themselves in all aspects of its planning. Feedback, reformation of
goals and positive encouragement will inevitably lead to teacher improvement. Thus, it may
be more productive to design evaluation systems on the basis, not of their formative or
summative orientations but of the informed decisions that need to be made at the level of the
teacher, the principal, the school district, and the Ministry of Education. We will need to keep
all of these participants in mind if we want to design a truly valid and effective system of
teacher evaluation.
REFERENCES
Shinkfield, A. J. and Stufflebeam, D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice.
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Siribanpitak, P. and Boonyananta, S. (2006). The qualifications of the teaching force in
Thailand. In Ingersoll, R. M. (Ed.) A comparative study of teacher preparation and
qualifications in six nations, Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education
(CPRE).
Office of Basic Education Commission. (2004). Statistical data of basic education in
Thailand. Bangkok: Donmuang Printing.
Office of Education Council. (2006). Education in Thailand 2005-2006. Bangkok: Office of

the Education Council.
Office of National Education Commission. (1999). The National Education Act of B.E. 2542.
Bangkok: Seven Printing Group.
Chapter 10
PISA AS A CATALYST FOR CAPACITY BUILDING

FOR EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION IN MACAO
Kwok-cheung Cheung
Faculty of Education, University of Macau, China
ABSTRACT
Macao is a small city situated on the western side of Pearl River estuary. It has a
population of less than half a million and a history of more than four hundred years.
Macao’s educational system is characterized by the fact that the majority of its schools
are privately-operated. Many of these private schools still receive a large annual subsidy
from the government. This is because the policy in Macao is 15 years of free obligatory
education and this is applicable not only to the few public schools but also to private
schools joining the school-nets. In Macao, all private schools are given full administrative
autonomy and complete freedom of instruction, and there is as yet no territory-wide
public examination from kindergarten through high school. While this might seem like a
good thing, it also means that the public has no way to objectively evaluate the
educational achievement of schools, even though the schools may be rather different and
aim to serve different communities. Thus a system of standardized evaluation with
clearly spelled out benchmarks is necessary so that the government can justify to the
public the amount of money it is spending on education.
Therefore, it is heartening to learn that PISA (the Program for International Student
Assessment), a flagship research program conducted by the Educational Testing and
Assessment Research Centre (ETARC) of the University of Macau (UM), now serves as
a catalyst for capacity building of essential research personnel for conducting educational
evaluation in Macao. In particular, the assessment of mathematical, scientific, and
reading literacy in PISA 2003, 2006 and 2009 studies covers pertinent school subject
areas. This allows the public to see for the first time, from both intra-system and inter-
system educational perspectives, how 15-year-old students perform after completing their
obligatory basic education in the Macao school system (see Lo and Cheung, 2005;
Cheung and Sit, 2007).
Keywords: Macao, PISA, literacy, educational evaluation, international assessment.

130 Kwok-cheung Cheung
1. INTRODUCTION
There is no public examination from kindergarten up to the end of the senior year in high
school (i.e. grades 1-12) in Macao. Basically student assessment is in the hands of the
individual schools which conduct school-based evaluations regularly for their students.
Because of this tradition, for the past four hundred years Macao citizens have not had
objective assessment information with which to judge the quality of their schools. Since the
majority of Macao schools are private, they have been legally entitled to enjoy complete
freedom in educational administration and autonomy in classroom instruction. It is a known
weakness of the Macao educational system that the government has no mechanism to arrange
the students sit for publicly administered examinations.
This is in spite of the fact that many of the private schools which join the school-nets are
heavily financed by the government. Given this awkward situation, the introduction of PISA
(the Program for International Student Assessment) was considered by the government to be a
way to begin capacity building of essential research personnel for conducting territory-wide
educational evaluation in Macao. Early in 2002, the DSEJ (i.e. Macao Education and Youth
Affairs Bureau) asked the Hong Kong-PISA Centre to help it launch the PISA 2003
Mathematical Literacy Study. Because this study was mainly executed by Hong Kong’s
educational researchers, many of the test instruments were simply borrowed from and much
of the research infrastructure modeled after Hong Kong. As a result of this special
arrangement, capacity building of essential research personnel was only developed on a very
limited scale at this early stage of study.
The PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Study provided Macao its first chance to learn how to
conduct a full-scale international assessment project in accordance with established technical
standards set up by PISA. This chapter seeks to document seven benefits Macao gains, with
regard to capacity building of essential research personnel for conducting territory-wide
educational evaluation, by participating in the various cycles or stages of PISA studies. The
seven benefits are:
1. Forge links and promote dialogues within and across the various operational levels
and administrative infrastructure of PISA projects;
2. Acquire a first-hand understanding of perspectives that will enable a literacy
assessment framework for test units design;
3. Gain a first-hand understanding of conceptual frameworks that will make possible a
roadmap for questionnaire design;
4. Acquire cutting-edge methodologies for handling weighting and sampling errors in
complex sampling design;
5. Acquire cutting-edge methodologies for handling scaling and measurement errors in
complex test booklet design;
6. Learn well-planned strategies for reporting PISA results to Macao schools and the
public;
7. Be involved in pioneering research and development in the assessment of electronic
reading literacy.
PISA as a Catalyst for Capacity Building for Educational Evaluation in Macao 131
2. FORGING LINKS AND PROMOTING DIALOGUES WITHIN

AND ACROSS THE VARIOUS OPERATIONAL LEVELS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE OF PISA PROJECTS
In the late 1990s, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) commissioned the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) as an
ongoing international project undertaking periodic comparative study of the mathematical,
scientific and reading literacy of 15-year-old students amongst participating
countries/economies (OECD, 1999). Most countries/economies took advantage of this
opportunity to use PISA as a catalyst for capacity building of essential research personnel in
the area of educational evaluation, and Macao is no exception (OECD, 2001). The
infrastructure for PISA projects can be envisaged as operating at a number of levels, as
described concisely below (See Figure 1, a diagram on the MyPISA website which is being
used for the internal management of PISA projects).
OECD Secretariat PISA Governing

Board
International Contractor(s) National Centre

z Quality standards and assurance z National Project
z Communications Manager Participating
z Sampling z National Project Countries
z Framework development Team z OECD
z Instrument development member
z Translation/verification countries
z Assessment operations z Partner
z Data capture and processing countries
z Statistical analyses Open Forum
z Reporting (Reading, Science,
Mathematics)
Experts
z Mathematics Expert Group
z Reading Expert Group
z Science Expert Group
z Questionnaire Expert Group
z Technical Expert Group
z Others as needed
Figure 1. Operative levels and administrative infrastructure for PISA projects
First, at the highest level, all PISA projects are overseen by the secretariat of the OECD
in Paris. Second, senior educational administrators, delegates and observers from
participating countries/economies form the PISA Governing Board (PGB) – a committee
within the OECD which sets policy priorities through collaborative processes in order to steer
projects.
Third, for each PISA project a National Project Manager (NPM) is appointed to
coordinate all activities of the National Center (NC) of participating countries/economies,
which is responsible for executing the PISA projects. At each NC, the NPM needs to work
closely with the PGB, and forms working teams that take care of project development,
implementation, and the reporting of results to participating schools and the public. Fourth,
there are Consortiums, i.e. groups of international research and academic organizations,
which develop test instruments and questionnaires and are responsible for implementing
PISA projects in accordance with pre-determined time-lines. Fifth, Technical Advisory
Groups and Expert Groups are formed to supervise and to solve problems raised by
Consortiums during the planning and implementation stage of PISA projects. Evidently,
researchers working at the Macau-PISA Center, the NC within ETARC of UM responsible
for undertaking all PISA projects in Macao, are benefited immensely by participating in such
a large-scale international student assessment program. This is because they are able to forge
links and engage in interactive dialogues with superb, internationally-oriented administrative
infrastructures.
3. FIRST-HAND UNDERSTANDING OF PERSPECTIVES LEADING

TO A LITERACY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR TEST UNITS DESIGN
The PISA assessments take a literacy perspective. They focus on the extent to which
students can use the knowledge and skills they have gained and practiced at school when
confronted with situations and challenges for which that knowledge may be relevant (OECD,
2005a). That is, PISA assesses the extent to which students can use their scientific knowledge
and skills to understand, interpret and resolve various kinds of scientific situations and
challenges. Additionally, it judges the extent to which students can use their mathematical
knowledge and skills to solve various kinds of mathematical challenges and problems, and
the extent to which they can use their reading skills to understand and interpret various kinds
of written material that they are likely to meet in their daily lives (OECD, 1999 and 2006).
When PISA initiates an international assessment of the three literacy domains, an assessment
framework with sample items will be drafted and released for consultation by the
participating countries/economies. This framework describes the breadth of each of the three
literacy domains, and the sub-areas and skills associated with each (see Figure 2 for the PISA
2006 science assessment framework, see also OECD, 2007d, p.35).
In the assessment framework shown in Figure 2, context refers to engagement with
science in a variety of life situations which are not limited to life in school (i.e. personal,
social and global situations within application areas such as health, natural resources,
environment, hazards, and frontiers of science and technology). These applications require
students to demonstrate three main kinds of scientific competencies (i.e. identify scientific
issues, explain phenomena scientifically, and use scientific evidence). How students do so is
influenced by their knowledge (i.e. knowledge of science and knowledge about science) and
attitudes (i.e. interest in science, support for scientific enquiry, and responsibility toward
resources and environments). Knowledge of science is further classified into four categories:
(1) physical systems, (2) living systems, (3) earth and space systems, and (4) technology
systems, whereas knowledge about science into two categories: (1) scientific enquiry and (2)
scientific explanations. In the test booklets, there is a balance of items assessing the various
components of the scientific assessment framework.
Context
Life situations that
Require people to Competencies
involve science and
technology
Identify scientific issues
Explain phenomena
scientifically
Use scientific evidence
How they do so is influenced by

Knowledge
a) What they know:
about the natural world and
technology (knowledge of science);
about science itself (knowledge about
science).
Attitudes
b) How they respond to science issues (interest,
support for scientific enquiry, responsibility).
Figure 2. Framework for PISA 2006 science assessment.
4. FIRST-HAND UNDERSTANDING OF CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORKS THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE
A ROADMAP FOR QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
The PISA survey collects information from students on various aspects of their home,
family and school background, as well as information from schools about various aspects of
their organization and educational programs. This information is collected to facilitate a
detailed study of intra- and international factors associated with varying levels of reading,
mathematical and scientific literacy among the 15-year-old students of participating
countries/economies. Topics of thematic reports need to be determined before the
Questionnaire Expert Group (QEG) knows what questions will need to be asked in the
various questionnaires (i.e. student questionnaire, school questionnaire, parent questionnaire,
educational career questionnaire, information and communication technology (ICT)

questionnaire). For those countries/economies that adopt a grade-based sample the teacher
questionnaire may be deployed to link teacher data directly to student or class data.
Table 1. Rubrics of questionnaires designed for the PISA 2009 Study
Questionnaire Rubrics
1. Student Questionnaire (11 rubrics)
• Basic student characteristics and school career
• Parental education and occupation, immigration status, home resources and family wealth
• Reading engagement outside school as measured in PISA 2000
• Learning strategies and learning preferences
• Generally supportive teaching and learning environments
• Classroom and school climate
• Monitoring and feedback
• Opportunity to learn reading literacy at school
• Extended measures of reading engagement
• Extended measures of school conditions that are expected to support reading engagement
• Extended measures of meta-cognition of learning strategies
2. School Questionnaire (9 rubrics)

• Basic school characteristics
• School resources
• School climate
• Supportive teaching and learning environment
• Admission, selection, tracking, setting and ability grouping
• Decentralization
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Equity-oriented policies and practices
• Educational leadership
3. Parent Questionnaire (5 rubrics)
• Parents’ report on reading engagement
• Home reading resources
• Socio-economic status
• Parents’ perception of and involvement in their child’s school
• Parents’ reports and opinions concerning policies and practices of their child’s school
Questionnaire Rubrics
4. Educational Career Questionnaire (5 rubrics)
• Student’s past, current and anticipated educational career
• Change of study program
• Setting and ability grouping arrangement
• Participation in additional instruction and courses relevant to reading literacy
• School choice
5. Information and Communication Technology Questionnaire (4 rubrics)

• Availability and use of computers
• Availability and use of newer ICT devices, services and applications
• Self-rated computer and internet skills
• Attitude toward computers and internet
For example, in the PISA 2009 reading literacy study, a roadmap entitled “From
Conceptual Framework to Questionnaire Content” was drafted by Professor Jaap Scheerens
in liaison with the Reading Expert Group (REG). In this roadmap, four themes are proposed
which cover: (1) system level indicators, cost effectiveness, and equity; (2) school
effectiveness, educational leadership, equity and cost effectiveness; (3) establishing an
effective learning environment in reading literacy at the instructional setting level; and (4)
establishing an effective learning environment in reading literacy at the individual student
level (OECD, 2007b). The Questionnaire Framework for PISA 2009 Reading Literacy Study
sketches data sources, and includes a rationale of the themes chosen, as well as the
antecedents, amenable processes and outcomes entailed.
Table 1 summarizes the rubrics of the five questionnaires used in the PISA 2009 Reading
Literacy Study. Questions are drafted and included in the respective questionnaires, and thus
intended for inclusion in the pilot study and then in the main study.
5. CUTTING-EDGE METHODOLOGIES FOR HANDLING WEIGHTING

AND SAMPLING ERRORS IN COMPLEX SAMPLING DESIGN
PISA is an age-based survey; it assesses 15-year-old students in grade 7 or higher. These

students are approaching the end of their compulsory schooling in most participating
countries/economies, and school enrolment at this level is close to universal in almost all
OECD countries/economies. Most countries/economies adopt a two-stage sampling
procedure. During the first stage schools are randomly selected within designated strata, with
probabilities proportional to their number of eligible 15-year-old students (i.e. PPS sample).
During the second stage students in larger schools will have a smaller probability of being
selected than students in smaller schools, so that the sum of the final student weights is equal
to the total number of eligible 15-year-old students in the population (see OECD 2005b for
details). This sampling procedure guarantees that all sampled students will have the same
probability of being selected. However, PISA data stills needs to be weighted, and capacity-
building of essential research personnel is necessary to the processing and analysis of such
kind of sampled data.
There are three reasons that cause the variation in final student weights: (1) Some
countries/economies may over-sample or under-sample certain strata of the population so as
to achieve better sample representation; (2) PPS is calculated using estimated size measures
instead of actual size measures for schools listed on the sampling frame; (3) weight
adjustments need to be applied at both school and student levels in cases where some students
do not respond the tests and/or questionnaires. Thus the calculation of sampling errors with
common complex analytical statistics (e.g. coefficients in multiple regressions) for complex
clustered sampling design proves extremely difficult for the young researchers. In PISA,
Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) and its variant, Fay’s modification, is used so that the
statistical results are computed initially for the whole sample, and then again for each of the
80 jackknife replicate samples, in order to calculate the sampling error for the required
statistics. There are special statistical programs for handling weighting and sampling errors
for complex sample designs. Capacity building of essential research personnel is therefore
very important because these are cutting-edge methodologies.
6. CUTTING-EDGE METHODOLOGIES FOR HANDLING SCALING

AND MEASUREMENT ERRORS IN COMPLEX TEST BOOKLET DESIGN
There is a need to construct quantitative measurement scales with qualitative graded

descriptions in order to gauge students’ proficiency levels in the three literacy domains, and
to chart performance trends across a 3-year assessment cycle (OECD, 2001, 2002, 2004a,
2004b and 2004c). For instance, in the PISA 2003 Study, test units are packaged together in
the form of thirteen 30-minute clusters (i.e. C1 to C13), and every student needs to take one
of the thirteen 2-hour test booklets (i.e. Booklet 1 to 13). Each booklet consists of 4 clusters
of test units arranged in designated time blocks. Table 2 presents the complex test booklet
design used in the PISA 2003 Study (OECD, 2005b). With such a design each cluster appears
4 times, once in each testing time block, and each pair of clusters appears once and only once.
Not all clusters are answered by every sampled student, and the use of Rasch scaling ensures
that the sample-free item calibration procedures will not be influenced by the respective
location of the test items in the different booklets. On the contrary, the clusters enable item-
free measurement of sampled students’ proficiency when literacy scales are shown to
conform to the requirements of the Rasch scaling procedures.
As an international assessment project it is imperative for PISA to reduce measurement
errors in making inferences about the target population being sampled. Errors may arise due
to poor conceptualization of the literacy constructs measured, unstable mental and physical
dispositions of the sampled students on the day of assessment, and adverse testing conditions
experienced by the students. Furthermore, these measurement errors may be smaller for
average students, and larger for the low and high achievers. In international assessment,
population estimates are always more important than individual estimates, and therefore
measurement errors should be minimized as far as possible. In PISA, each student’s literacy
proficiency is gauged by a set of five plausible values (PVs), which represent the range of
abilities that a student might reasonably have.
Table 2. Test booklet design used in the PISA 2003 Study
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4

Booklet 1 C1 C2 C4 C10
Capacity building of essential research personnel is necessary because researchers have

to be trained to use PVs in the reporting of PISA results at both the national and international
levels (see Cheung and Sit, 2007 for such attempts).
7. WELL-PLANNED STRATEGIES FOR DISSEMINATING PISA RESULTS

TO PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS AND THE PUBLIC
Sit and Cheung (2008) was the first attempt to report PISA 2006 Study results to
participating schools and the public. Reporting PISA findings and assessment results is a job
needed meticulous attention. This is because schools will decline to join PISA assessment if
schools find that the findings and assessment results released are not useful to them for
purposes of school improvement. Often, below-average positions in the international
assessment league table appear as headlines in local newspapers. Officials in charge of
education are then very nervous if they cannot provide satisfactory explanations for the
adverse results reported, and this is particularly sensitive when there is a decline in literacy
performance from the level reported in the last international assessment administered three
years ago.
For those interested, the official report of the Macao-PISA 2006 Study comprises six
bilingual chapters: (1) Conduct of enquiry; (2) A profile of literacy performance for 15-year-
olds in Macao; (3) Quality science education indicators; (4) Literacy-ESCS relationships for
Macao schools; (5) International comparison of literacy performance; and (6) Thematic
reports and follow-up studies (Cheung and Sit, 2007). During the school briefing session, the
following figure was found to be of considerable interest to the principals because it showed
the slightly non-linear relationship between between-school scientific literacy performance
and the economic, social and cultural status of the home of the students enrolled (see Figure
3; see also Cheung and Sit, 2007, p.57-58). Based on the plot shown in Figure 3, Macao
school administrators on the one hand are able to judge whether their schools are high-
performing, average-performing or low-performing, and on the other hand to determine the
index of the economic, social and cultural status of students’ homes, so as to have a better
understanding of the achievement and social class of the students they serve.
In a nutshell, if we classify the scientific literacy performance of the 43 schools
participating in the PISA 2006 Study into high-performing (13 schools), average-performing
(17 schools), and low-performing (13 schools), the following three observations may be
made:
1. The ESCS of the four schools classified as “International/Portuguese” in the PISA

2006 Study are the highest amongst the 43 sampled schools (mean ESCS > 0.50).
However, as far as scientific literacy performance is concerned, two are high-
performing (top one-third of the 43 schools) and two are low-performing (bottom
one-third of the 43 schools). Therefore, there is no apparent relationship between the
four schools’ scientific literacy performance and their ESCS.
2. The eleven highest-performing schools in scientific literacy (excluding the two high-
performing International/Portuguese schools mentioned above) are generally
associated with homes with a higher ESCS (i.e. -1.1 < ESCS < 0.5).
3. The eleven lowest-performing schools in scientific literacy (excluding the two low-
performing International/Portuguese schools mentioned before) are generally
associated with homes with a lower ESCS (i.e. -1.80 < ESCS < -0.90). However, two
low-performing schools (schools number 15 and 43) have students coming from
homes with a higher ESCS (i.e. ESCS = -0.44 and -0.01).
▲ High-performing school ＋Average-performing school ■ Low-performing school
600 8
27 3
30
20
24
550 6 23
19 33 38 9
42 14
17 21
12
26 5 7
16 22 37 4
500 40
32
39
35
Sc i en ti f i c L i ter ac y
34
13
29
1 18
31
450 2
43
10
25
41 15
400 28 36
350
11
300
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS)
Figure 3. Plot of between-school scientific literacy performance with ESCS.
8. PIONEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT

OF ELECTRONIC READING LITERACY
At the turn of the century, electronic reading literacy emerged as a new form of literacy
which needed to be inculcated during the basic education stage of schooling (OECD, 2007a).
Nowadays, quite a lot of students (especially in the more developed countries) are reading
electronically. Therefore, electronic reading literacy has been emerging as an increasingly
important skill in the educational agenda. However, assessment of this type of competence
demands the appropriate delineation of a sound assessment framework, one which deals with
both print-based and electronic reading texts simultaneously. In response to the digital age,
the PISA 2009 Reading Literacy Study seeks to achieve this goal (OECD, 2007c).
Figure 4. Relationship between fixed reading texts and competences of assessment tasks presented in
the print medium.
Figure 5. Relationship between dynamic reading texts and competences of assessment tasks delivered
in the electronic médium.
Compared with print-based reading literacy, there are three aspects of electronic reading
literacy needed to be addressed if a sound assessment framework is to be developed (see
Figure 4 and 5 for the comparison). The three aspects are: (1) students who read online access
and retrieve information via search engines and embedded hyperlinks; (2) students construct
and integrate texts in accordance with access structures they opt to follow, i.e. by clicking
hyperlinks and searching for usable information in multiple texts until they judge that the
information collected has been adequately and meaningfully synthesized; (3) students need to
reflect on and evaluate critically authorship, as well as the accuracy and credibility of
information retrieved. Again, capacity building of essential research personnel is urgently
needed in this innovative area of reading literacy assessment.
CONCLUSION
Supported by renowned scholars and institutions, PISA studies are able to furnish reliable
and valid data in order that the government may hold schools accountable for the subsidies
rendered to them as part of the Macao’s obligatory universal basic education program.
Because there is no tradition of public examination in Macao, capacity building of essential
research personnel for the conduct of territory-wide educational evaluation is waiting to be
developed. There are five benchmarks at which the outcomes of PISA studies in Macao can
be targeted, and of which capacity building of essential research personnel can be conceived
as successful: (1) Monitoring of quality of Macao’s educational system in the inculcation of
reading, mathematical and scientific literacy for 15-year-olds across successive cycles of
PISA studies; (2) Monitoring of equity in the distribution of learning opportunities as
measured by the impact of the economic, social and cultural status of the home on school’s
literacy performance; (3) Maintenance of consistency of literacy standards amongst different
types of schools, especially between the public and private schools; (4) Revelation and
explanation of differential gender difference patterns in the three domains of literacy, i.e.
reading, mathematical and scientific literacy; (5) Revelation and explanation of teaching and
learning environments facilitative of the life-long learning for 15-year-old students.
In sum, the seven benefits delineated and gained by Macau-PISA Centre via active
participation in PISA 2003, 2006 and 2009 studies are pertinent to answer whether PISA can
serve as a catalyst for capacity building of essential research personnel for educational
evaluation in Macao.
REFERENCES
Cheung, K. C., and Sit, P. S. (2007). Macao PISA 2006 Study Report Number One:
Assessment of Scientific, Mathematical and Reading Literacy Performance of 15-year-
old Students from an International Comparison Perspective. Macao: Educational Testing
and Assessment Research Centre, University of Macau.
Sit, P. S., and Cheung, K. C. (2008). Key Findings of the Macao-China PISA 2006 Scientific
Literacy Study. Invited paper presented at the International Conference on “PISA 2006:
The Performance of Education Systems in Countries and Regions” jointly convened by

the Autonomous Province of Trento and the OECD on 3-4 April 2008 at Trento, Italy.
Lo, L. F., and Cheung, K. C. (2005). 2003 Macao-PISA Final Report: Assessment of 15-
Year-Old Macao Students. Macao: The Macau-PISA Center.
OECD. (1999). Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: A New Framework for
Assessment. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from the OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2002). Reading for Change: Performance and Engagement across Countries Paris:
OECD.
OECD (2004a). Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. Paris:
OECD.
OECD (2004b). What Makes School Systems Perform? Seeing School Systems through the
Prism of PISA. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2004c). Problem-solving for Tomorrow’s World: First Measures of Cross-curricular
Competencies from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2005a). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary.
Paris: OECD.
OECD (2005b). PISA 2003 Data Analysis Manual: SPSS Users. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for
PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2007a). Reading Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2009 (Document: NPM0709/7b).
Paris: OECD.
OECD (2007b). Questionnaire Framework for PISA 2009 (Document: NPM0709/5a). Paris:
OECD.
OECD (2007c). Electronic Reading Assessment: Updates and Field Trial Arrangements
(Document: NPM0709/2). Paris: OECD.
OECD (2007d). PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Volume 1:
Analysis. Paris: OECD.
CONTRIBUTORS
Sun-Geun Baek, Ph.D. is currently a Professor of Department of Education, College of
Education in Seoul National University (SNU), Korea. He earned his bachelor’s degree in
Education from SNU. He also obtained his master’s degree in Educational Measurement
and Evaluation from SNU. Then he obtained his doctoral degree in Quantitative Methods
in Education from University of California at Berkeley, USA. His full and rich
experiences include Associate Dean at College of Education in SNU, Director of
Department of International Cooperation at Education Research Institute in SNU, Expert
Adviser at Presidential Committee on Education Innovation, Director of Department of
Curriculum Development in National Academy for Educational Administrators, Senior
Research Fellow in Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, Senior Researcher in
Korean Educational Development Institute, Research and Post-doctoral Researcher in
University of California at Berkeley. He was awarded for the best research professor in
SNU, the best research report in the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, the
best work in the National Training Center for Statistics, and the best research report in the
Korean Educational Development Institute. He also got Korean Government Overseas
Scholarship and graduated as “top scholar” in the Department of Education at SNU.
Kwok-cheung Cheung, National Project Manager of Macao-China PISA 2009 Study, is
currently serving as Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Director of Educational
Testing and Assessment Research Centre at the Faculty of Education of the University of
Macau. He specializes in testing, measurement and evaluation.
Sirichai Kanjanawasee is professor of education in the Department of Educational Research
and Psychology, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, where he chairs the
Educational Measurement and Evaluation Doctoral Program Committee. He is also the
Director of the Testing and Evaluation Center for Educational and Professional
Development. He obtained his Bachelor’s Degrees in Science and Mathematics Teaching
from Chulalongkorn University and Sanitarial Science from Mahidol University, and
Master’s Degree in Educational Research from Chulalongkorn University. He earned his
doctorate in Measurement and Evaluation from the University of California at Los
Angeles. Among several awards and honors he received in recent years are Alumni of
Distinction, Faculty Distinguished A ward, Chulalongkorn University Excellent Research
Award, and Ngarmjitburachat Excellent Research Award. He authored and co-authored
numerous textbooks on Advanced Measurement and Evaluation Theories.
John Chi-Kin Lee is Professor at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Dean of
Education and Director of The Centre for University and School Partnership, The
144 Contributors
Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has led the development of large-scale school
improvement project including the Accelerated Schools for Quality Education Project
and the Partnership for Improvement of Learning and Teaching Project. He is the Chief
Editor of Journal of Basic Education and Regional Editor (Asia) of Educational Research
and Evaluation (Routledge). He is author and co-author of four academic books,
including Curriculum, Teaching and School Reforms: Educational Development in a
New Century (The Chinese University Press, in Chinese, 326pp.) and (with Kerry
Kennedy) The Changing Role of Schools in Asian Societies: Schools for the Knowledge
Society (Routledge, 228pp.). He is also the co-editor (with Leslie Lo and Allan Walker)
of Partnership and Change for School Development (The Chinese University Press), (co-
edited with Roger Cheng and Leslie Lo) Values Education for Citizens in the New
Century, (co-edited with Michael Williams), School Improvement: International
perspectives (Nova Science Publisher, Inc.) and (co-edited with Michael Williams)
Environmental and Geographical Education for Sustainability: Cultural contexts (Nova
Science Publisher, Inc.).
Mu-Lin Lu is the Political Deputy Minister, for the Ministry of Education, Taiwan. As an
experienced administrative officer in charge of Taiwan’s higher education, international
cultural and educational relations, since 2000, Dr. Lu has implemented important policies
for the facilitation of innovated educational policies in Taiwan. Prior to his current
Ministry position, Dr. Lu was the Administrative Deputy Minister, 2000-2006; the
Secretary General for the Ministry of Interior, 1997-1998; and the Director of the
Department of Cultural and Educational Affairs for the Mainland Affairs Council, 1992-
1997. Dr. Lu received his doctorate degree from the University of Texas at Austin, in the
United States. His research interests include: supervision of instruction, teacher
development and education policy.
Nicholas Sun-Keung Pang is a Professor of Department of Educational Administration and
Policy in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include
educational administration, management and leadership, as well as school effectiveness
and improvement. He also serves as Executive for the Hong Kong Centre for the
Development of Educational Leadership, Leader of the School Development and
Evaluation Team (SDET) and Programme Director of the Preparation for Principalship
Course and School Managers Course commissioned by the Hong Kong Education
Bureau. He was elected the Chairman of Hong Kong Educational Research Association
for the year 1999-2001 and served as member of the Advisory Committee on Quality
Assurance Inspectorate and the Working Group on the Study of Effectiveness of Public-
sector Secondary Schools of the then Education and Manpower Bureau. He is an
appointed Sector/Subject Specialist of the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of
Academic and Vocational Qualification for 2008-2011. He has been publishing widely in
local and international journals. He is Co-author of an academic book entitled Leadership
and Management in Education: Developing Essential Skills and Competencies (322
pages) published in 2003 and the Editor of an academic book entitled Globalization:
Educational Research, Change and Reforms, published in 2006. He was invited to speak
at major international academic meetings in Hong Kong, mainland China, Macau,
Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Australia, Slovenia, and the United States.
Samuel S. Peng is a Chair Professor of the National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU).
Before joining NTNU, he was a Chair Professor of the National Tsing Hua University
Contributors 145
(2003-2006). From 1981 to 2003, he was a program director at the National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, responsible for several national data
systems. He was a reviewer for professional journals such as American Educational
Research Journal, Educational Researcher, and Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis. In addition, he was the Editor in Chief of the New Waves -- Educational
Research and Development, the quarterly journal of the Chinese American Educational
Research and Development Association from 1996 to 2006. Currently he is the Editor in
Chief of the Journal of Higher Education in Taiwan.
Pruet Siribanpitak is an Associate Professor and Dean of Faculty of Education at
Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand. He got his bachelor’s degree in
Elementary Education, master’s degree in Educational Administration from
Chulalongkorn University, and doctoral degree in International and Development
Education concentration in Economics of Education from University of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. His experiences including a faculty member of Department of Education
Research, Department of Educational Administration and Department of Foundations of
Education, head of Department of Foundations of Education, Associate Dean for
Planning and Development, Dean of Faculty of Education at Chulalongkorn University,
president of Thailand Deans of Education Council, expert member of the Committee on
Education of the House of Representatives and the Research Project on Teacher
Education, the Office of Education Council, Ministry of Education. He also has a variety
of international experiences including resource person and consultant in Vietnam, Nepal,
Lao, and India. He used to serve as a member of advisory group for the UNESCO on
“Reorienting Teacher Education for a Sustainable Future” at Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ramanathan Subramaniam holds the concurrent positions of Associate Dean (Graduate
Academic Programs) in the Graduate Programmes and Research Office, and Associate
Professor in the Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group at the National
Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University. He has diverse research
interests: physical chemistry, physics education, chemistry education, primary science
education, ICT in education, informal science education, teacher education, science
communication, and creativity. He has over 50 research papers to his credit in
international (refereed) journals published in the USA and Europe. He has also over 25
refereed chapters to his credit in books of international publishers in the USA and
Europe. Four of his books were recently published by major international publishers. His
biography appears in the Dictionary of International Biography (Cambridge, UK) and the
Marquis Who’s Who in Asia (New Jersey, USA).
Suan Yoong,B.Sc.,M.Ed. ( Malaya ); M.S.,Ph.D.(Indiana), is a Fellow/Professor of Education
at the Sultan Idris University of Education, Malaysia and Deputy Chair of the
International Organisation for Science Education, IOSTE. His bachelor’s degree was in
Chemistry and Mathematics, but he specialized in science and technology education and
psychometric at the masters and doctoral levels. He was the Chairman of Higher Degree
Program and a Professor of Education at the School of Educational Studies, University of
Science Malaysia. He was also the Project Coordinator of the Malaysian General Science
Project at the Malaysian Curriculum Development Center. While at Indiana University,
he won the Outstanding Graduate Student award and was inducted into Phi Delta Kappa,
the National Honor Society in Education. He was a recipient of the UNESCO Fellowship
Award for the 1992-93 Participation Program for research in Psychometric and Testing -
146 Contributors
as Research Fellow at the California Testing Bureau-McGrawHill, Monterey, California,

and visiting scholar to the Educational Testing Service at Princeton, New Jersey, the
Lindquist Center at University of Iowa and the Psychological Corporation at San
Antonio, Texas. He was also a Research Fellow at the University of California at
Berkeley, and the Center for Evaluation and Testing, University of Wisconsin at
Madison, USA (1994-1995)
Yasuhiko Washiyama is the President of Tokyo Gakugei University and a Professor in the
Department of Education. His experiences in Tokyo Gakugei University are rich. He was
a Lecturer, an Assistant professor, a Professor and the Chair of the Department of
Education. He was also the director of the library. For educational background, he has a
graduate degree in Humanities.
INDEX
Asian, 2, 3, 9, 10, 31, 35, 62, 69, 70, 93, 94, 97, 104,
A 107, 108, 144
Asian countries, 94
academic, 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28,
assessment, 6, 7, 13, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 38, 45,
30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55,
46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66,
58, 61, 68, 78, 88, 95, 96, 102, 104, 112, 118,
67, 68, 88, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 132, 144
104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 115, 117, 122, 124,
academic performance, 55, 58, 61, 68, 104, 121
129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 140
accountability, 2, 6, 10, 24, 31, 33, 62, 68, 69, 70,
assessment procedures, 24
71, 88, 90, 104, 106, 107, 117
assessment tools, 6, 38, 55, 58
accreditation, 15, 16, 17, 21, 42, 43, 44
atmosphere, 7, 112
accuracy, 4, 140
attitudes, 77, 115, 133
achievement, 8, 10, 23, 30, 34, 35, 37, 46, 48, 49, 52,
auditing, 18
54, 58, 59, 61, 63, 69, 97, 101, 102, 105, 106,
Australia, 14, 15, 27, 91, 96, 97, 108, 144
123, 124, 129, 137
authority, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 51, 88, 111, 113
achievement test, 10, 101
autonomy, 4, 8, 86, 129, 130
action research, 33, 64
awareness, 2
adaptability, 104
adjustment, 14, 47, 103 B
administration, 4, 7, 13, 14, 19, 20, 32, 48, 49, 57,
77, 83, 105, 111, 112, 122, 124, 130, 144 barrier, 99
administrative, 3, 8, 13, 15, 19, 20, 35, 48, 129, 130, barriers, 58
131, 132, 144 BCA, 61, 66, 68
administrative efficiency, 20 beginning teachers, 62
administrators, 2, 6, 10, 47, 48, 49, 53, 79, 82, 85, behavior, 123
87, 90, 104, 114, 115, 132, 137 Beijing, 65, 70
advocacy, 62 beliefs, 106
after-school, 104 benchmark, 24, 26, 102
age, 9, 13, 25, 43, 94, 96, 100, 101, 135, 139 benchmarking, 24, 29, 46, 107
agent, 24, 77 benchmarks, 8, 34, 129, 140
alternative, 9, 101, 102, 105 benefits, 68, 85, 130, 140
antecedents, 135 Best Practice, 28
anxiety, 67, 98 bias, 103
application, 18, 100, 101, 108, 113, 132 bilingual, 137
aptitude, 56, 57, 101, 103, 106 birth, 62
arithmetic, 114 birth rate, 62
artistic, 105 blocks, 136
Asia, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 17, 24, 62, 93, 94, 104, 107, 108, BMA, 118
144, 145 Boston, 34
148 Index
bottom-up, 65, 75, 81, 87 compliance, 49, 53, 58, 111, 113
breaches, 99 components, 47, 66, 89, 133
breakdown, 87 comprehension, 38, 39
Britain, 14, 15, 18 compulsory education, 7, 111, 113
broadband, 33 concentration, 145
buildings, 32 conceptualization, 136
business management, 17 concrete, 85, 115
confidence, 78, 85, 114
C confusion, 87
consciousness, 47, 115
caliber, 13
consensus, 4, 6, 20, 85
calibration, 58, 59, 136
conservation, 52
Canada, 96, 97
constraints, 28, 31, 105
candidates, 1, 4, 35, 39
construction, 57
capacity building, 8, 62, 129, 130, 131, 140
consumers, 9
cast, 104
control, 7, 24, 33, 35, 37, 94, 97, 105, 111
catalyst, 8, 129, 131, 140
cost effectiveness, 135
Catholic, 17, 79
costs, 19
Catholic Church, 79
Council of Ministers, 46, 48
certificate, 25, 37, 101
coupling, 67
certification, 29, 101
course design, 16
changing environment, 89
covering, 81
cheating, 66, 99, 100
creativity, 31, 34, 98, 102, 145
childhood, 80
credibility, 140
children, 93, 94, 97, 98, 104
credit, 145
China, 3, 9, 91, 96, 97, 144
critical thinking, 53, 55, 56, 57
citizens, 21, 47, 55, 130
criticism, 115
citizenship, 47
cues, 114
civil service, 120
cultural heritage, 68
classes, 30, 37, 95, 96, 98, 119
culture, 2, 5, 7, 31, 34, 65, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85,
classification, 52, 120
87, 89, 90, 93, 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107
classroom, 38, 54, 58, 67, 70, 100, 101, 114, 123,
curriculum, 1, 6, 7, 38, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57,
130
58, 62, 67, 94, 97, 98, 99, 105, 113, 123
classroom practice, 54, 58
curriculum change, 58
classrooms, 9, 55, 58, 70
cycles, 79, 130, 140
clients, 51
cyclical process, 76
closure, 62, 66, 68
clusters, 136 D
cognition, 84, 105, 134
coherence, 6, 61, 68 data analysis, 78
collaboration, 5, 8, 75, 87, 96, 112, 113 data collection, 78, 115
colleges, 4, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, database, 14, 18
39, 40, 41, 46, 96 dating, 96
communication, 10, 24, 43, 59, 78, 87, 105, 134, 145 decentralization, 6, 7, 111, 122
communication technologies, 105 decision-making process, 62
communities, 46, 62, 69, 97, 129 decisions, 8, 28, 50, 126
community, 1, 6, 8, 10, 47, 50, 53, 61, 68, 76, 79, 82, definition, 9
83, 85, 96, 97, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, delivery, 101
119, 120 delusion, 70
community cooperation, 83 democratization, 43
competence, 2, 42, 43, 44, 85, 123, 139 Department of Education, 35, 75, 143, 144, 145, 146
competition, 5, 43, 62, 99, 114 deregulation, 7, 111
competitiveness, 2, 13, 24, 27, 30, 55, 68, 104 developed countries, 34, 138
complexity, 105, 124 deviation, 40
Index 149
diet, 93 employment, 24, 42

dietary, 93 empowered, 106
diffusion, 24 encouragement, 33, 38, 126
directives, 87 energy, 18, 32
disabled, 41 engagement, 132, 134
disappointment, 65 England, 19, 64, 94, 107
discipline, 8, 14, 25, 51, 52, 117, 123 English Language, 28
discretionary, 111 enrollment, 4, 36
disseminate, 48 enrollment rates, 36
distribution, 8, 140 enterprise, 31, 99
diversity, 24, 62, 87 environment, 86, 87, 89, 115, 132, 135
doctors, 120 epistemological, 24
downsizing, 24 equality, 63
duration, 25 equating, 58, 59
duties, 9, 51, 67, 81, 112 equity, 1, 2, 135, 140
ERA, 69
E ESR, 6, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 88, 89
ethics, 9, 49, 51
ears, 100, 118
ethnic groups, 97
earth, 133
Europe, 145
East Asia, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 31, 62, 70, 93, 94, 97,
exaggeration, 97
104, 107, 108
examinations, 2, 5, 7, 10, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
economic development, 1, 24
31, 32, 33, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 93, 94, 95,
economic status, 8, 134
96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109,
education, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24,
130
25, 28, 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51,
expert teacher, 52, 120, 124
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
expertise, 19, 104
69, 70, 71, 75, 79, 80, 86, 88, 90, 91, 95, 96, 101,
external environment, 7, 88, 90
102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 117, 118,
eyes, 106
119, 122, 126, 127, 129, 130, 141, 143, 144, 145,
146 F
education reform, 46
educational assessment, 7, 45, 93, 94, 102 failure, 7, 82, 108
educational background, 146 fairness, 4, 14, 20, 21, 124
educational career, 101, 134 faith, 51
educational institutions, 4, 30, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, family, 31, 53, 133, 134
55 fatigue, 98
educational objective, 113 fear, 87, 104
educational policies, 1, 86, 144 feedback, 26, 66, 68, 78, 115, 134
educational policy, 1, 87 fees, 14
educational practices, 104 financial resources, 86, 106
educational process, 104, 113 financial support, 4, 86
educational programs, 133 fishing, 41
educational quality, 1, 46, 49, 76, 90, 111, 112, 117 fitness, 28
educational research, 38, 82, 130 flight, 24
educational system, 2, 5, 8, 10, 35, 37, 46, 68, 75, 86, flow, 115
87, 88, 90, 94, 97, 99, 102, 104, 106, 129, 130, fluid, 115
140 focusing, 7, 50, 54, 56, 90, 97, 99, 113
educators, 2, 5, 9, 94, 98 food, 93
e-learning, 33 foreign language, 57
electives, 101 formal education, 46, 52, 108
elementary school, 114, 119, 120 France, 14
emotional, 51 freedom, 8, 86, 129, 130
Emotional Intelligence, 84 full capacity, 18
150 Index
funding, 4, 13, 14, 15, 19 higher education, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22,
27, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56,
G 57, 96, 118, 144
high-level, 20
gauge, 32, 136
high-stakes testing programs, 109
gender, 8, 36, 140
hiring, 1
gender differences, 8
holistic, 28, 101, 102, 107
General Certificate of Education (GCE), 25, 28, 64
Hong Kong, 1, 3, 6, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69,
generation, 33, 47
70, 71, 75, 76, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 94,
global competition, 1
107, 108, 130, 144
global economy, 31
House, 70, 145
globalization, 2, 4, 22, 24, 43, 55, 91, 144
hub, 100
goal setting, 78
human, 5, 23, 43, 55, 87, 89, 106
goals, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 38, 54, 76, 77, 89, 90, 104,
human resource development, 55
105, 106, 112, 113, 126
human resources, 5, 23, 43, 87
goal-setting, 112
going to school, 7 I
governance, 2, 88
government, 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 38, identification, 36, 78
42, 52, 55, 61, 66, 68, 86, 94, 96, 100, 111, 119, IEA, 2, 24, 26, 30, 34
129, 130, 140 immigrants, 66
government policy, 55 immigration, 134
GPA, 45, 56, 57, 58 implementation, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 25,
grades, 10, 25, 53, 58, 62, 65, 96, 98, 99, 100, 104, 38, 43, 44, 49, 50, 67, 69, 76, 77, 86, 87, 88, 89,
130 90, 93, 94, 102, 103, 106, 126, 132
grading, 57, 99, 103 incentives, 67, 106
grants, 19 inclusion, 23, 135
Great Britain, 94 increased workload, 68
Greece, 145 independence, 15
group activities, 37 India, 144, 145
grouping, 134 Indian, 94
groups, 13, 45, 48, 56, 57, 58, 94, 97, 105, 113, 132 Indiana, 145
growth, 94, 98, 100, 126 indication, 32
guessing, 5, 32 indicators, 4, 16, 20, 45, 47, 48, 56, 57, 58, 76, 79,
guidance, 89, 111, 112, 114 82, 83, 85, 89, 113, 135, 137
guidelines, 2, 4, 7, 43, 46, 49, 66, 88, 103, 112 indices, 30
guiding principles, 55 indigenous, 5, 94
individual characteristics, 115
H individual differences, 1
Indonesia, 29
handling, 13, 130, 135
induction, 8, 121
hands, 130
industry, 19, 100
happiness, 104
infancy, 101
harm, 46
inferences, 136
harmony, 46
inflation, 57, 58, 100
hazards, 132
information and communication technology (ICT),
health, 46, 47, 112, 132
24, 33, 43, 100, 101, 134, 145
heart, 107
information technology, 50, 62
high school, 2, 5, 9, 13, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 94,
infrastructure, 130, 131
96, 97, 111, 115, 121, 129, 130
inherited, 94
high school grades, 9
initiation, 87
high scores, 10
innovation, 2, 5, 10, 31, 34, 48, 50, 55, 79, 125, 143
inspection, 6, 7, 62, 64, 65, 75, 76, 79, 111, 113
inspections, 63, 76, 87
Index 151
institutionalization, 18 land, 24
institutions, 1, 4, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 30, 46, 47, 48, language, 2, 27, 56, 62, 64, 66, 67
49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57, 140 language proficiency, 62, 64
institutions of higher education, 13 large-scale, 63, 99, 105, 132, 144
instruction, 8, 10, 25, 52, 63, 69, 94, 101, 106, 114, later life, 97
129, 130, 134, 144 leadership, 6, 10, 48, 49, 65, 66, 77, 89, 90, 134, 135,
instructional activities, 50 144
instruments, 24, 33, 101, 103, 105, 130, 132 leakage, 99
integrity, 46, 51 leaks, 103, 108
intellect, 46 learners, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 58, 105, 108, 123, 125
intentions, 68 learning, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27,
interactions, 115 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 46, 47, 51, 54, 55,
interactivity, 105 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 78, 79, 82,
interdependence, 88 83, 85, 88, 89, 90, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103,
international standards, 23, 33 104, 105, 107, 108, 113, 115, 123, 125, 126, 134,
internationalization, 17, 22 135, 140
internet, 33, 66, 134 learning culture, 88, 94, 99
interview, 40, 41 learning difficulties, 97
interviews, 28, 69, 78 learning environment, 134, 135, 140
investigative, 58 learning outcomes, 54, 58
investment, 43 learning process, 100, 101
island, 23 learning society, 46, 47
Italy, 141 learning styles, 101
item response theory, 58 licenses, 49
lifelong learning, 43
J lifestyles, 114
lifetime, 101
jackknife, 135
linear, 58, 137
Japan, 3, 7, 9, 24, 34, 94, 96, 97, 107, 111, 112, 113,
linkage, 6, 48, 61, 67, 68
114, 116
links, 32, 33, 130, 132
Japanese, 109, 114
listening, 38
jobs, 99
literacy, 8, 71, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
judge, 130, 137, 140
136, 137, 138, 140
judges, 132
local community, 111, 112
judgment, 43, 55, 65, 117, 124, 126
local government, 96
junior high, 114
location, 115, 136
junior high school, 114
logistics, 30, 100
jurisdiction, 114
London, 10, 69, 91, 107, 109, 126
K Los Angeles, 143
M
K-12, 4
kindergarten, 8, 129, 130
Macao, 3, 8, 9, 94, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 140,
King, 52
141, 143
knowledge acquisition, 103
Macau, 8, 129, 132, 140, 141, 143, 144
knowledge economy, 13
machinery, 25
knowledge-based economy, 55, 104
Madison, 146
Korea, 5, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 97, 108, 143
Mainland China, 94
Korean, 38, 39, 40, 43, 143
maintenance, 140
L Malaysia, 3, 7, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102,
103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 145
L1, 28 management, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 17, 18, 35, 42, 47, 50, 54,
labor, 24 55, 62, 65, 67, 69, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88,
lack of opportunities, 9 89, 91, 100, 101, 112, 113, 123, 131, 144
152 Index
management committee, 86 Nanyang Technological University, 23, 145

mandates, 7 nation, 13, 24, 53, 104
manipulation, 77 nation building, 24
manpower, 76 National Center for Education Statistics, 145
market, 100 national policy, 52
mathematical knowledge, 132 National Research Council, 105, 109
mathematics, 2, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, natural, 5, 23, 28, 31, 47, 96, 132
33, 34, 65, 66, 70, 98, 114 natural resources, 5, 23, 28, 31, 132
Mauritius, 107 neoliberal, 7
meanings, 61 Nepal, 145
measurement, 2, 45, 50, 55, 105, 130, 136, 143 Netherlands, 14
measures, 6, 10, 21, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 88, New Jersey, 145, 146
112, 134, 135 New York, 10, 59, 70, 91, 107, 108
media, 24, 26, 30, 33, 50, 94 New Zealand, 27, 96, 97
medicine, 17, 20, 56, 57 newspapers, 137
membership, 14 nongovernmental, 19
memorizing, 54, 98 nongovernmental organization, 19
mental health, 47 non-native, 63
mental illness, 114 normal, 9, 31, 56, 86
MES, 95, 99, 103 normal development, 9
mid-career, 114 norms, 24, 34, 89
middle schools, 42 North Carolina, 108
Ministry of Education, 7, 8, 13, 14, 25, 27, 28, 29,
30, 32, 33, 39, 44, 59, 76, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99,
O
101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 116, 117, 118,
objectivity, 4, 14, 20, 104
119, 121, 122, 126, 144, 145
observations, 26, 66, 67, 78, 100, 137
minority students, 108
OECD, 2, 63, 131, 132, 135, 136, 138, 141
mirror, 1, 98
online, 140
misconceptions, 34, 87
on-line, 101
missions, 9
openness, 43, 66
mobile device, 62
oral, 100
mobility, 96, 97, 99, 106
organizational culture, 20
modeling, 105
orientation, 94, 97, 98, 104, 106, 126
models, 2, 3, 9, 20, 50, 65, 79, 105
outsourcing, 24
modules, 81
overweight, 28
MOE, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 36, 39, 42, 44,
ownership, 33
94, 122
momentum, 28 P
money, 19, 24, 129
moral behavior, 10 Pacific, 107, 108
morale, 87, 89, 90 pain, 104
morality, 8, 46, 51, 52, 117, 125 paradigm shift, 86
mother tongue, 25 parental support, 68
motion, 116 parents, 2, 8, 10, 42, 66, 76, 79, 82, 85, 89, 93, 94,
motivation, 106, 114 97, 101, 103, 104, 106, 111
movement, 6, 75, 77, 90 Paris, 10, 107, 132, 141
MSC, 100, 108, 109 partnership, 6, 23, 64, 65, 70, 75, 86
multi-ethnic, 94 passive, 18, 20, 87, 88
multimedia, 100, 105 pedagogical, 1, 9, 99
multiple regression, 135 pedagogy, 100
music, 57, 98 peer, 65, 67, 125
Pennsylvania, 145
N
percentile, 40
Index 153
perception, 97, 134 professional teacher, 9

perceptions, 65, 67, 79, 82 professionalism, 9, 89, 90
performance appraisal, 62 professionalization, 7, 98
performance indicator, 65, 66, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, program, 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 35, 42, 45, 53, 58, 81, 85,
85, 88, 90, 91, 113 100, 101, 106, 121, 129, 132, 134, 140, 145
periodic, 131 progress reports, 64
personality, 51, 98, 103 public, 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29,
Philadelphia, 119, 126 30, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 52, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63,
Philippines, 29 64, 76, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105,
philosophy, 49, 56, 98, 107 106, 112, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 129, 130,
physical chemistry, 145 132, 137, 140
physical education, 98 public domain, 26
physical fitness, 28 public education, 42
physics, 145 public interest, 52
pilot study, 135 public schools, 8, 117, 120, 129
PISA, 8, 9, 62, 63, 69, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, public welfare, 43
135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 143 publishers, 145
pitch, 32 pupils, 89, 100, 115
planning, 15, 18, 49, 69, 76, 78, 87, 126, 132
plants, 43
Q
play, 104, 124
qualifications, 8, 27, 42, 50, 117, 118, 120, 126
pluralistic, 94
qualitative research, 86, 90
plurality, 87
quality assurance (QA), 2, 6, 22, 29, 42, 45, 46, 47,
policy making, 88
48, 49, 54, 58, 61, 63, 67, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 81,
policymakers, 67, 68, 94
88, 102, 113, 117, 125
political leaders, 104
quality control, 7, 23, 24, 25, 48
pools, 15
quality improvement, 10, 16, 42, 69
poor, 82, 136
questionnaires, 38, 78, 89, 132, 134, 135
poor performance, 82
quorum, 41
population, 35, 38, 129, 135, 136
quotas, 17, 19, 56
portfolios, 99, 105
positive attitudes, 2 R
postsecondary education, 1, 106
power, 6, 42, 87, 98 race, 106, 107
powers, 111 random, 5, 20
PPS, 135 range, 3, 26, 62, 81, 106, 136
preference, 82 ratings, 13, 21
president, 145 reading, 4, 6, 8, 45, 54, 55, 58, 65, 71, 129, 130, 131,
pressure, 7, 10, 31, 87, 97, 98, 100, 106, 114 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140
primary care, 111 reading skills, 132
primary school, 5, 25, 31, 33, 34, 37, 42, 65, 67, 69, reality, 101, 104, 111
79, 81, 94, 96, 97, 99 reasoning, 105
private, 9, 14, 19, 43, 46, 58, 86, 93, 96, 99, 104, recession, 87
107, 114, 118, 120, 129, 130, 140 recognition, 17, 31, 68, 78, 96, 102
private-sector, 14, 19 refining, 66
probability, 32, 135 reflection, 68, 81
probe, 108 reforms, 2, 5, 43, 62, 77, 79, 86, 87, 91, 99, 106, 113
problem solving, 78 regional, 34
problem-solving skills, 26, 98, 102, 105 regression method, 58
problem-solving strategies, 98 regressions, 135
productivity, 2 regular, 14, 23, 38, 41, 55, 100
professional development, 49, 64, 70, 91, 106, 126 regulations, 14, 20, 111
professional duties, 9, 67 relationship, 9, 38, 39, 137
154 Index
relationships, 82, 99, 115, 137 search engine, 140

relatives, 93 second language, 27
reliability, 28, 29, 84 secondary education, 26, 29, 46, 52, 95
reputation, 15 secondary schools, 23, 28, 42, 79, 81, 94, 96, 99
Research and Development, 59, 70, 100, 130, 138, secondary teachers, 42
145 secretariat, 132
research design, 38 Secretary General, 144
resentment, 65 security, 99
resistance, 68, 86, 87, 90 selecting, 7, 20, 39, 41, 44, 89, 90, 97
resource allocation, 1 self, 6, 15, 20, 48, 64, 65, 69, 70, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
resources, 1, 5, 7, 13, 16, 19, 23, 28, 31, 43, 64, 86, 81, 86, 91, 112, 123, 134
87, 88, 89, 90, 100, 106, 132, 134 self-assessment, 7, 48, 111
responsibilities, 9, 112 self-control, 48
revenue, 19 self-discipline, 51
rewards, 96 self-esteem, 126
rhetoric, 6, 61, 68 self-evaluations, 14, 20, 87
righteousness, 47 self-improvement, 13, 76, 83
risk, 114 self-reflection, 42, 87
roadmap, 55, 130, 135 self-renewal, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 90
rote learning, 98 self-report, 28
rubrics, 31, 134, 135 series, 6, 75, 79, 85, 94, 96
rural, 41, 120 services, 14, 20, 29, 46, 47, 86, 100, 134
Shanghai, 70
S shape, 19
shaping, 7, 81, 93, 94
safeguard, 4, 15
shares, 114
safety, 112
sharing, 6, 69, 81, 90
salaries, 31
shortage, 4, 87
salary, 52, 120, 121, 122
short-term, 89
sample, 86, 105, 132, 134, 135, 136
signals, 114
sample design, 135
Singapore, 3, 5, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
sampling, 130, 135
33, 34, 94, 97, 107
sampling error, 130, 135
skills, 7, 9, 26, 28, 35, 37, 42, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55,
SAR, 3, 5, 6, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 65, 71
56, 57, 58, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 91, 97, 98, 101,
satisfaction, 23, 42, 113
102, 104, 105, 106, 126, 132, 134
SBA, v, 7, 62, 93, 94, 99, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106
Slovenia, 144
scaling, 130, 136
social behavior, 35, 36
schema, 78
social class, 137
scholastic achievement, 112, 114
social context, 2, 3
school activities, 37, 44, 113
social development, 47, 48, 51
school climate, 134
social problems, 94
school community, 96, 115
social services, 20
school culture, 78, 87
social skills, 47
school enrollment, 62
social status, 96
school management, 1, 67, 76, 86
socialization, 107
school performance, 2, 76, 77, 84, 89, 94
software, 100
school support, 88
South Korea, 3, 5, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 94, 109
school work, 82, 86
Southeast Asia, 94
schooling, 2, 31, 36, 82, 98, 102, 107, 135, 138
Spain, 70
science education, 137, 145
specialization, 9
scientific knowledge, 132
speech, 51, 68
scores, 10, 28, 37, 40, 66, 68, 105, 106, 123, 125,
speed, 17, 32
126
spiritual, 46, 48
search, 2, 140
Index 155
sports, 31 target population, 136

SPSS, 141 targets, 7, 76, 89, 90, 113
Sri Lanka, 107 taxonomy, 26
SSB, 61, 67, 68 teacher assessment, 62, 122
stability, 113 teacher effectiveness, 126
staff development, 65, 81, 83, 86 teacher preparation, 126
stages, 19, 29, 52, 67, 68, 78, 103, 130 teacher training, 6, 55, 58, 112, 120, 121
stakeholder, 33, 113 teachers, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35,
stakeholders, 2, 5, 10, 23, 24, 29, 33, 43, 56, 65, 68, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54,
81, 82, 87, 113 55, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 78, 79, 81,
standard deviation, 40 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
standard of living, 24 104, 105, 106, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117,
standards, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126
32, 33, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, teaching, 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28,
58, 59, 64, 66, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 113, 117, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 64, 65,
130, 140 66, 67, 68, 70, 78, 82, 83, 88, 89, 96, 97, 98, 100,
statistics, 43, 135 102, 105, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 120, 121, 122,
stigma, 30 123, 124, 125, 126, 134, 140
stimulus, 105 teaching evaluation, 14, 18, 126
strategies, 3, 76, 77, 78, 89, 98, 126, 130, 134 teaching quality, 16, 21
streams, 25, 28 technology, 6, 24, 30, 50, 89, 90, 100, 105, 132, 134,
strength, 25 145
stress, 68, 69, 98 telecommunications, 100
structuring, 113 tension, 87
student achievement, 2, 9, 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, 102, territory, 64, 66, 87, 89, 129, 130, 140
105, 106 tertiary education, 94
student behavior, 112 test items, 38, 39, 136
student characteristics, 134 test scores, 7
student development, 8, 54, 58, 117, 125 testimony, 94
student proficiency, 56 Texas, 108, 144, 146
subjective, 55, 126 textbooks, 143
subsidies, 14, 19, 140 Thai, 45, 46, 47, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 118, 120, 121
subsidy, 129 Thai Language, 52, 54
suburban, 120 Thailand, vi, 3, 6, 8, 9, 29, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 55,
suffering, 87 56, 57, 58, 59, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 126, 127,
Sun, 4, 5, 6, 17, 35, 75, 108, 143, 144 145
Sunday, 108 Thessaloniki, 145
superiority, 32 thinking, 6, 13, 18, 20, 26, 45, 54, 58, 103, 106
supervision, 6, 47, 61, 68, 111, 144 third party, 29, 32, 113
supervisor, 125 threatened, 67
supervisors, 49, 53 threats, 68, 77
supply, 42, 99 threshold, 67
surgery, 77 time, 5, 10, 16, 32, 33, 37, 40, 43, 49, 52, 56, 64, 76,
survival, 31 86, 87, 89, 93, 98, 101, 102, 103, 105, 114, 129,
sustainable development, 15, 20, 75 132, 136
synthesis, 125 time frame, 49, 105
systems, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 28, 31, 54, 58, 61, 62, Tokyo, 111, 114, 115, 146
67, 68, 86, 89, 106, 111, 112, 126, 133, 145 tolerance, 104
Tongue, 25, 28
T top-down, 75
tracking, 134
Taiwan, 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 94,
trade-off, 105
96, 97, 144
tradition, 7, 108, 130, 140
talent, 13, 15
156 Index
training, 6, 15, 20, 33, 53, 55, 58, 68, 78, 81, 82, 85, validity, 27, 28, 29, 84, 105, 124, 126
88, 102, 103, 106, 112, 120, 121 values, 3, 6, 28, 62, 89, 90, 96, 136
training programs, 88 variability, 26, 27
transfer, 36 variables, 38, 39
transformation, 55, 85, 89, 108 variation, 135
transition, 7, 103 Victoria, 91, 108
transparency, 66 Vietnam, 144, 145
transparent, 20, 29 visible, 105
trees, 32 vision, 22, 51, 77, 88, 104
trial, 42, 113 vocational, 13, 25, 46, 95, 96, 99
triangulation, 85 vocational tracks, 95, 96, 99
trust, 42, 78, 103, 114, 115 voice, 32
TSA, 6, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68 volunteer work, 37
tuition, 93, 107
turbulent, 86, 87, 89
W
tutoring, 43, 93, 98, 107, 108
weakness, 7, 130
twinning, 96
wealth, 134
well-being, 28
U Western countries, 24
wind, 32
uncertainty, 68 winning, 17
undergraduate, 117, 120 Wisconsin, 146
UNESCO, 10, 69, 107, 145 wisdom, 10, 53, 58
UNICEF, 107 workers, 24
uniform, 113 workforce, 13, 24
unions, 5, 43 working hours, 31
United Kingdom (UK), 27, 96, 97, 145 workload, 7, 33, 61, 66, 100, 105, 114
United States, 9, 14, 17, 96, 97, 144 workplace, 106
universities, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, World War, 111
22, 27, 37, 39, 40, 46, 55, 56, 63, 65, 93, 95, 96, World War I, 111
97, 106 World War II, 111
university collaboration, 96 writing, 6, 40, 41, 45, 53, 54, 55, 58, 65
university education, 13, 25, 26, 95
Y
V
yield, 30
validation, 32

Educational Evaluation in East Asia Emerging Issues and Challenges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Evaluation in East Asia Emerging Issues and Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

IN EAST ASIA: EMERGING ISSUES

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

NOTICE TO THE READER

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Avaailable upon request

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 

Chapter 9 Teacher Evaluation in Thailand:

Samuel S. Peng1 and John C. K. Lee2

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

Table 1. Topics covered by each author

2. Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Learning

Ramanathan Subramaniam focuses on educational evaluation in two areas: the learning

3. Evaluation for School Improvement

• the School Activities Records (SAR);

4. Evaluation for Quality Assurance

Sirichai Kanjanawasee presents Thailand’s evaluation practices in relation to curriculum

5. Evaluation for Mixed Purposes and Educational Reform

7. Evaluation of Educational Progress

8. Evaluation of School Performance

9. Evaluation of Teacher Performance

10. Evaluation of Student Achievement

In the final chapter, Kwok-Cheung Cheung offers an insightful analysis of educational

• Overall performance of the 15-year-olds in reading, mathematical and scientific

PERSISTING CHALLENGES AND CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE

EDUCATION EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

B. Developing a Higher Education Evaluation Agency Suitable for Taiwan

1. The Establishment of Higher Education Evaluation Agencies

i. Planning and researching Taiwan’s university evaluation system.

i. Goals of university department and graduate school evaluation

a. To gain an understanding of the current quality of university departments and

a. Characteristic differences of university departments and graduate schools are

iii. Items covered in university department and graduate school evaluations

Criteria 1: Goals, special characteristics and self improvement

iv. Dealing with evaluation results:

a. Medical school evaluation:

b. Engineering education accreditation:

In 2005, engineering education accreditation system and schemes established by the

c. Accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

III. INNOVATIVE ACTIONS

A. Creating a Well-Designed Evaluation System

Evaluation work in Taiwan needs to develop toward systematization and

B. Leading Universities Towards Greater Autonomy

Presently, Taiwan’s evaluation system is led by the government, with passive

C. Improving the Quality of University Management, Efficiently Allocating

A. Training Professional Evaluators

B. Increasing Evaluation Funding

In addition to TWAEA, which as a private-sector, nongovernmental organization, is

C. Designing Evaluation Indicators and Methods

D. Implementing Self Evaluation

As the sanctuary of academia and high-level professional training, universities must

E. The Fairness of Evaluators

In choosing the members of an evaluation committee for the evaluation of a university

F. Procedure for Generating Evaluation Results

A number of universities in Taiwan began department and graduate school evaluations in

G. Ways of Presenting the Evaluation Results

H. Evaluation Follow-Up Mechanism

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION IN SINGAPORE:

Keywords: educational; institutional evaluation; Singapore; science and mathematics

educational evaluation of learning via leaving level examinations administered by an

EDUCATION SYSTEM IN SINGAPORE

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

• It is internationally recognized and has long years of experience in setting and

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.