Evolution of Writing Assessment in Hong Kong Secondary Schools: Policy, Practice, and Implications for Literacy Development

  • Ricky LamEmail author


Teaching and evaluating writing is a professionally exacting process. Despite the global assessment reform movements, most teachers probably remain unfamiliar with related knowledge and skills to assess pupil writing formatively and summatively. Hence, this chapter aims to review whether the government rhetoric and teacher classroom assessment practices diverge or converge and why. It further looks into how writing assessment policies and practices have implications for literacy development. To review the writing assessment development in Hong Kong secondary schools, I adopted a documentary analysis approach by looking into the three major curriculum guides published in different decades, and the narrative frames composed by four English teachers in two secondary schools. Results of the review are presented, followed by a discussion on insightful pedagogical implications.



This work was funded by the Language Fund under Research and Development Projects 2018–19 of the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR), Hong Kong SAR.


  1. Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabuses for secondary schools: English language (secondary 1–5). Hong Kong: The Education Department.Google Scholar
  3. Curriculum Development Council. (2007). English language: Curriculum and assessment guide (secondary 4–6). Hong Kong: Education Bureau and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.Google Scholar
  4. Curriculum Development Council. (2017). English language education: Key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1—secondary 6). Hong Kong: The Education Bureau.Google Scholar
  5. Davison, C., & Leung, C. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fulmer, G. W., Lee, I. C., & Tan, K. H. (2015). Multi-level model of contextual factors and teachers’ assessment practices: An integrative review of research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 475–494.Google Scholar
  7. Hong Kong Baptist University & Hong Kong Examinations Authority. (1998). Review of public examinations system in Hong Kong: Final report (The ROPES Report). Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  8. Kennedy, K. J. (2007, May). Barriers to innovative school practice: A socio-cultural framework for understanding assessment practices in Asia. Paper presented at Redesigning pedagogy—Culture, understanding and practice conference, Singapore.Google Scholar
  9. Lam, R. (2018). Teacher learning of portfolio assessment practices: Testimonies of two writing teachers. In H. Jiang & M. F. Hill (Eds.), Teacher learning from classroom assessment: Perspectives from Asia Pacific (pp. 99–119). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee, I. (2011). Issues and challenges in teaching and learning EFL writing: The case of Hong Kong. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. 118–137). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Qian, D. D. (2008). English language assessment in Hong Kong: A survey of practices, developments and issues. Language Testing, 25(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roehrig, A. D., Duggar, S. W., Moats, L., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. (2008). When teachers work to use progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction: Identifying potential supports and challenges. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Romeo, L. (2008). Informal writing assessment linked to instruction: A continuous process, for teachers, students, and parents. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hong Kong Baptist UniversityKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations