Testing to Destruction: a problem in a small state

Assessment in Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2002

Testing to Destruction: a problem in asmall stateKEITH MORRISONSchool of Education, Inter-University Institute of Macau, NAPE, Lote 18, Rua deLondres, #P, Edf. Tak Ip Plaza, Macau

TANG FUN HEI JOANCentre for Pre-University Studies, University of Macau, P.O. Box 3001, Taipa,Macau

ABSTRACT This paper presents a review of assessment procedures in the small state ofMacau, a Special Administrative Region of China under the ‘one country two systems’policy. The situation of Macau is used as a critical case study of some questionableeducational practices that can occur when testing runs without restraint. The paper presentsquantitative and qualitative data from two empirical studies to argue that testing—largely,in this case, the testing of students’ ability to repeat book knowledge and facts—if leftunchecked, becomes part of a dependency culture, a hermetically sealed system in whichcurricula and testing mutually reinforce each other in producing a low-level, facts-drivencurriculum, dangerously didactic pedagogy, rote learning, poor student motivation, and apowerful controlling mechanism on teachers and students. What is disturbing is that this isthe very system which many participants in education in Macau seem to want.

Introduction

It is commonplace to read of the negative effects of testing across the world (e.g.Broadfoot et al., 1990; Harnisch & Mabry, 1993; Gipps, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996;Black, 1998; Sacks, 1999). Further, despite the widely documented damage thatrampant testing systems can bring, their allure seems irresistible to governments andeducationists alike. That over-reliance on testing can exert a negative effect oncurricula, student motivation, self-esteem, creativity, higher order thinking and� exibility is well known. In Japan the nightmare of the cramming schools whichdestroy childhood is infamous (Dore & Sako, 1989), and Bray’s (1999) study of theextent of private lessons bears witness to the intensity of the pressure to passexaminations.

A little over a decade ago Lewin and Lu (1990) reported that widespread testingin China led to low-level recall, discouraged creativity and originality, narrowed thecontent and framing of curricula, elevated content over skills, furthered the creden-tialist spiral, and encouraged rote learning. The situation in Macau, now a Special

ISSN 0969-594X print; ISSN 1465-329X online/02/030289-32 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0969594022000027654

290 K. Morrison & F. H. Tang

Administrative Region (SAR) of China since the handover from the Portuguese in1999, is reported here, and suggests that, rather than the situation improving sincethe study by Lewin and Lu, the problem is exacerbated in this small state. Thispaper uses Macau as a case study to demonstrate what can happen when testingfeatures highly in an education system. The situation in Macau is a microcosm ofsome of the more damaging educational practices that can occur when testing runswithout restraint. These very problems are incurred in an education system in whichsome key elements of market principles predominate, e.g. competition, privatisation,diversity, and limited state intervention rather than state regulation (Hayek, 1960,1979). The paper argues that testing—in this case largely the testing of students’ability to repeat book knowledge and facts—if left unchecked, becomes part of aself-defeating dependency culture, a hermetically sealed system in which curriculaand testing mutually reinforce each other in producing a low-level, facts-drivencurriculum, dangerously didactic pedagogy, rote learning, a distortion of studentmotivation, and a powerful controlling mechanism on teachers and students, andwhere students are tested to destruction. What is disturbing is that this is the verysystem which many participants in education in Macau seem to want. The phenom-ena reported here provide a rejoinder to Biggs’s (1996a) and Watkins and Biggs’s(2001) suggestions that the claims made about the negative aspects of rote learning,memorisation, didactic methods, large classes, compliance cultures and super� cial,low-level learning in Chinese learners are frequently western misperceptions; thesephenomena exist, and are reported by the non-westerners themselves in Macau.

The paper commences with a description of the situation in Macau, derived fromqualitative data from two studies reported here, and then presents two numericaldata sets: a small scale exploratory study (N 5 19) (hereafter called Study 1) usingan opportunity sample (covering teachers of different sex, age, years in teaching,quali� cations, school’s medium of instruction, grade taught, subject taught, kind ofschool), which sets the scene for a much larger, representative study (N 5 113) [1](hereafter called Study 2) using a rigorously controlled, proportionate strati� edsample of teachers of English in Macau (strati� ed by the same factors as Study 1,and, additionally, training in English teaching, quali� cations in English, years ofteaching English, and mother tongue). There is no reason to believe that thesituation in English teaching does not re� ect the wider situation of teaching andlearning across the whole curriculum in Macau, indeed the data from both studiesreinforce this view. Both studies use numerical and qualitative data derived from twoquestionnaire-based surveys, and Study 2 also uses semi-structured interview data.The teachers in the two studies are drawn from across the primary and secondaryage ranges, have a wide coverage of years of teaching experience, and are drawnfrom the three main providers/kinds of schools in Macau (government, privatereligious bodies, and private non-religious bodies); they draw on Chinese- andEnglish-medium schools in equal proportions in Study 1 and in a 3 ; 1 ratio (Chineseto English) in Study 2; teachers in Study 1 teach across the curriculum areas, whilstthose in Study 2 teach only English. The samples, then, are heterogeneous andre� ect the characteristics of the Macau teaching population well.

Macau has no territory-wide examinations. Students sit school-set examinations,

Testing to Destruction 291

TABLE I. Distribution of government and non-government schools in Macau

Number Number Number Number Number ofof of of Form 5 of Form 6 Students

Schools Students Students Students (% of total)

GovernmentPrimary and Secondary 18 6,213 187 73 6.27Special Education 4 175 0.18Non-government (Private)Christian Primary & Secondary 39 51,579 2,209 1,319 52.12Other Private Primary &Secondary 31 40,997 1,483 1,083 41.43Total 92 98,964 3,879 2,475 100.00

Source: Adapted from Direccao dos Servicos de Educacao e Juventude (2000) http://www.dsej.gov.mo/school/schoollistSummary c.asp

and standards vary, with schools issuing their own certi� cates. The small size ofMacau (only 23.8 square kilometres, with close to half a million population)(Direccao dos Servicos de Estat õ stica e Census, 2000), making it amongst the mostdensely populated places in the world, perhaps renders this lack of public examina-tions, less of a problem than in larger countries, as there is ‘common knowledge’ ofsuccessful and less successful schools within Macau, and informal, word of mouthcontacts between schools and the community are comparatively extensive (Bray &Hui, 1991)—a positive effect of a small state (Bray & Hui, 1989). Externalexaminations, where they exist (which is limited), mostly take the form of overseasexaminations such as General Certi� cate of Secondary Education (GCSE), Teach-ing of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), Scholastic Assessment Task(SAT), the Graded English Test, and the International Baccalaureate (Tang &Morrison, 1998, p. 250), and students take these for their portability into othercountries (c.f. Bray, 1998, pp. 223–224).

Macau demonstrates the outcome of 400 years of colonialism—a former colonialgovernmental laissez-faire style which, argues Leung (2001, p. 206), was the prod-uct of Portuguese rule in Macau that was marked by ‘inef� ciency, ineffectiveness,corruption and nepotism’. The laissez-faire, ‘hands off’ style extended to schooling,and was characterised (Tang & Morrison, 1998, p. 259) by: (a) limited govern-mental expenditure on education; (b) high class sizes in the extensive privateschools; (c) often eclectic and derivative curricula and materials, with textbooksimported from, and about, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China(PRC); (d) an uncoordinated, unstandardised education system, adopting organisa-tional models from Portugal, the PRC, Taiwan and Hong Kong; (e) an inadequatedata and evidential base for monitoring education; (f) unresponsiveness to con-sumers and a dearth of information to parents; (g) negligible quality assurance andquality control systems. Since the 1999 handover the SAR’s Government has begunto make changes, but, as it provides education for less than 7% of the schoolpopulation in its own schools (Table I), its capacity for impact is very limited.


Macau has a long history of private education; in 1999/2000 the governmentschools comprised less than 24% of schools in the SAR (22 schools), for 6213students (6.27% of the school population other than special schools; adding inspecial schools brings the � gure to 6.45 %). For the same academic year the privateschools provided education for 92,576 students (93.55% of the school population).Table I provides an analysis of the principal kinds of schools in Macau.

The Christian church provides some 52.12% of schooling—a very high number ofschools and students. Non-religious private schools provide a signi� cant number ofschools and students in Macau—some 41.43 %. The extent of private schoolingeffectively circumscribes and reduces signi� cantly the power of the state to direct orcontrol education in Macau. The private schools have almost limitless freedom andautonomy, often vested in the principal, to devise their own curricula and assess-ments, and to determine class size, teacher recruitment and conditions of service(Rosa, 1990; Tang & Morrison, 1998), even though private schools which are partof the Government’s ‘free places’ scheme have to seek approval from the SAR’sEducation Department for some curricular matters.

Table I also indicates the dropout between secondary Form 5 (16-year-olds) andForm 6; 1,404 (36.2 %) students do not proceed from Form 5 to Form 6. With nostate-wide formal assessment in Macau, it can be inferred that 3879 students leaveMacau schools with no formal quali� cations unless they follow examinations fromoverseas (no � gures are available for the numbers of students here).

A powerful determinant of practice in schools is the recruitment and retention ofteachers; most are employed on short-term (one-year) contracts, and renewal ofcontracts is in the gift of the school principal. Fear of loss of contract renewal is avery powerful motivator for compliance with the principal’s wishes and policies, andmany principals operate a ‘command and control’ mentality. As respondents report:‘no teachers would dare to disagree’, teachers ‘have no right to disagree withanything’ and it is useless to disagree because matters ‘will be decided by the schoolleadership’. Principals, naturally, are concerned to meet parental wishes, and largenumbers of parents appear to wish their children to have a facts-driven curriculumwhich is reinforced by rote memorisation and repetition in tests; many Macauprincipals themselves support this. This echoes the view of Eckstein and Noah(1993) and Bray and Steward (1998, p. 21) that examinations ‘are themselvesinstruments to control curriculum and teachers’ activity’.

The control and compliance mentality is pervasive in many Macau schools:principals control teachers, teachers comply and, in turn control students, whocomply. Principals and subject teachers control the curriculum and testing. Ifstudents’ test scores are low then teachers come under pressure from schoolauthorities and are ‘blamed’ (a word used frequently by respondents) by theprincipal; indeed, if there are too many failures teachers ‘might be asked to put themarks up’ in order to preserve the positive public image of the school’s success asevidenced in the number of its school graduates. Teachers who do not pass enoughstudents lose popularity with them. Students who fail tests give up, have to do extrawork, suffer considerable blame and pressure from school and family, and maybehave to repeat a year. Many of the respondents feared being ‘reported’ to the


principal if test scores were low; if they disagreed, or wished to disagree with thetesting, then they would either leave voluntarily or be forced to leave. Given thepublic face of success that schools in Macau seek to cultivate, some principals are‘just concerned with the marks of the students’ and ‘don’t care how much thestudents learn’. Test scores and examination results from internally set tests,together with numbers of students gaining university entrance, are widely usedindicators of school success in Macau.

In 2000, the Government of Macau SAR issued a document which castigatedwhat it termed the ‘duck-stuf� ng’ (spoon-feeding of facts) regime of schools (RegiaoAdministrativa Especial de Macau da Republica Popular da China, 2000, p. 31) forits inability to meet the demands on education for developing knowledge and societyin the twenty-� rst century, though it remains to be seen the extent to which this willbe effective in breaking with the deeply ingrained facts-driven curriculum. Assess-ment in Macau is overwhelmingly construed as testing. Notions of authenticassessment, portfolio assessment, open-ended assessment, ipsative and facilitatedself-assessment, and assessment other than by testing have little currency in Macau.Students need to parrot facts that have been gleaned from textbooks and taught inclass. For many students, if they fail to repeat verbatim the phrases from thetextbook then they lose marks, and, for many students, gaining marks is the purposeof education. So entrenched is the mark-seeking paradigm that students will onlylearn that which they know will gain them marks; it is a present-day repetition ofHolt’s (1969) ‘mark-grubbing’ mentality which, he argued over 30 years ago, ledschools to fail students and students to fail. Schools in Macau are wedded to testingand to the facts-driven curriculum that testing supports.

It is important, also, to note that the size of classes in Macau is large. In both ofthe two studies reported here the average class size is 41–50 students per class(reported by 52.6% of teachers in Study 1 and 48.6% of teachers in Study 2), withsigni� cant proportions of teachers working in classes of 51–60 (reported by 15.8%of teachers in Study 1 and 23.4% of teachers in Study 2) and a low incidence ofclasses of over 60 (1.8% in Study 2), whilst average class sizes of less than 40students account for only 31.6% of responses in Study 1 and 25.9% of responses inStudy 2.

The size of the class exerts a signi� cant constraint on teachers: they have tocontrol large numbers of students, and testing is a very useful device for this (Cohenet al., 1996, p. 370). In Macau, testing is construed as testing the students’temporary absorption of a textbook and material learnt in class, and teachers controllarge classes by concentrating the curriculum on the delivery of textbook-basedinformation. Textbook-driven, testing-driven and didactic teaching methods can allbe seen as a response to the issue of controlling large classes. With class sizes inMacau being so large, teachers frequently report that the only way in which they cancope is in ‘survival mode’, which is by emphasis on learning of facts (often by rote),and didactic, traditionalist teaching styles which are reinforced by testing; the systemis designed to ‘keep the lid’ on large classes. Testing exerts a controlling function onteachers and students which enables the system for handling large classes to runef� ciently. Further, students are discouraged from disagreeing with teachers in


Macau; disagreement results in lower marks. Whether this is a feature of theConfucian ethic, widely reported (e.g. Watkins & Biggs, 1996) of respect forauthority, seniority, and teachers, or simply a manifestation of the wielding of powerby teachers, is a moot point. Regardless of the aetiology of the issue or problem, thefact is that the culture of non-disagreement/compliance, reinforced by teachers’control of marks in tests, serves as a control mechanism for large classes of students.

One has to be cautious in being too dismissive of rote learning, memorisation,putative low-level cognitive strategies, large classes and putative teacher-centredteaching. Research by Biggs (1996a, b), Marton et al. (1996), Dahlin and Watkins(2000), Biggs and Watkins (2001), Watkins and Biggs (2001), Cortazzi and Jin(2001) and Mok et al. (2001) suggests that it may be a western misperception toregard such issues negatively, as problems, because:

(a) Asian students achieve highly on international measures of performance;(b) repetition and memorisation do not preclude—indeed they can lead to—under-

standing, deep rather than super� cial learning, high level cognitive strategies andthe creation of a ‘deep impression’ of material on the Chinese learner’s mind;

(c) many Chinese teachers handle large classes in cognitively sophisticated, high-level, involved and engaging ways (i.e. the separation of teacher-centred teach-ing from learner-centred learning is untenable) (Cortazzi & Jin, 2001).

That said, the evidence presented in this paper from the teachers in Macau, whilstnot questioning the � ndings of these writers, indicates that these may not be true inMacau. Importantly, the teachers who said this in Macau were not westerners(discussed below).

Tests in Macau schools—their contents, frequency, scope, use and nature—areoverwhelmingly under the control of the teachers themselves, and many respondentscommented on the bene� ts of the collaborative process in devising tests with teachercolleagues. Whilst some respondents stressed that there was ‘no regime of testing’ intheir schools, the overwhelming majority agreed that this was prevalent. Thequalitative data from the open-ended questions in the studies reveal many claimedadvantages of testing, in that it:

· ‘is the driving force to make the students study’;· ensures that ‘students understand the lecture’;· measures ‘how much students have learnt’;· indicates ‘how much knowledge a student has on a topic’;· ensures that lazy students learn (a feature mentioned by many respondents);· ‘forces students to learn their lessons’;· ‘puts pressure on students to learn’;· ‘makes students study, as they are highly marks oriented’;· provides evidence of ‘how effective is the teachers’ teaching’;· ‘keeps teachers working hard’;· is a way of assessing ‘large numbers of students’ (and class size is high);· ‘prepares students for university entrance’.


It is interesting, perhaps, to note the frequent references to ‘lazy students’; thatthis might be a symptom of deeper problems (e.g. student motivation or neglect oflearner-centredness) was not mentioned, as if teacher control of the testing andcurriculum agenda were unproblematic. On the other hand, the same respondentsalso indicated several disadvantages of testing, in that tests:

· put students and teachers under severe pressure and overload;· test only the topics covered in the class: ‘the students only learn what the teachers

have assigned them to study’;· lack variety;· create a culture of mark-seeking in students;· build in failure and depress student motivation;· train students ‘to study mechanically’ and ‘do not make students study in the right

way’, thereby causing them ‘to lose interest in studying’;· ‘cannot show the real situation of learning’;· are ‘not very encouraging for students who have trouble studying’;· ‘require too much memorisation’, often ‘without understanding’;· dampen creativity and critical thinking (one respondent remarked that ‘if the

questions ask for purely critical thinking, students don’t bother to answer thequestion’);

· encourage ‘students [to] spend too much time on remembering the dead knowl-edge for the test. It wastes a lot of their time’;

· build in passivity and make students lazy.

The irony here is that the regime of testing is set up by the very people whocomplain about them: the teachers themselves, usually the senior staff. With ahuge private sector, the schools have the power to determine the curriculum,the syllabus and the assessment (its form, frequency, purpose, contents, timing,types), yet they opt for a facts-driven, textbook-based curriculum which is reinforcedby repeated testing of what has been memorised. Students learn in order to passthe tests and then bleach much of the material from their minds; memorisationis followed by forgetting, as one respondent mentioned: ‘after testing they forgetall’. Respondents put this testing situation down to the constraints under whichthey operate, including, for example: the problems of class size; the thrust foruniversity entrance; teachers’ lack of knowledge of alternatives or of assessmentgenerally (a feature widely reported); the traditionalism of colleagues; teachers’inability to challenge senior staff; the lack of teacher motivation to innovate; thepressure for contract renewal; the lack of support for change from central authori-ties; the power of principals; the state-wide mentality of testing (such that no oneschool could afford to break with this without suffering); and the mentality ofstudents who regard learning as that which takes place to pass tests and examina-tions.

Whilst this paper does not intend to present an overall picture of assessment inMacau, the picture presented maybe catches much of the real situation. Whatfollows is a sequence from early education to the end of secondary education.


Early Years and Primary Education

Children start being tested from age three. Three-year-olds sit examinations inschool/kindergarten and students from age � ve are tested frequently—often on afortnightly basis—in subjects including Chinese and English and they, too, have tosit examinations. For example a � ve-year-old in Macau can sit a test in English andthis is scored out of 100, even though there may be only a few words of vocabularyin the test; in one English test, comprising writing only four words, one � ve-year-oldchild omitted the letter ‘t’ from ‘shirt’ and thereby lost 25%. School syllabuses areintense; teachers complain that they have no time to divert from the syllabuses andthat there is insuf� cient time even to cover the facts required in the syllabuses. Manyprimary and secondary teachers are marking machines (see the data on the averagenumber of pieces of work, the frequency of testing, the time spent on marking, andthe time spent on testing, all reported in Study 1, below); with the large class size,the self-imposed marking load is immense. Schools have speci� c marking rooms forteachers, which are piled high with hundreds of books to be marked by each teacherevery day (see the data on marking reported in Study 1, below). The fear of gaininglow marks is high both for teachers and students; for teachers it can mean non-renewal of contracts. Pressure is put on teachers and students alike. The tests areinternally set by teachers and marked by the same teachers.

So powerful is the pressure to pass tests that children from the ages of four and� ve do homework each night, and vast numbers attend private lessons in ordereither to understand better material covered in school or to pass re-sit tests andexaminations (see also Goodman, 1992; Gruber, 1992; Morrison, 1994; Bray,1999). Indeed many schools run additional tutorial classes after hours in school asa way of paying their teachers more money (see also Bray, 1999, pp. 74, 77). Thereis a vast industry of private lessons from quali� ed and unquali� ed teachers, second-ary school students and university students. Classes take place in private homes,with several students attending each session, or in premises rented speci� cally forthe purpose from public and private associations, with considerable money to bemade from the enterprise. Secondary school students both give and receive privatelessons, and university students give private lessons as a way of paying tuition fees(see also Bray, 1999, pp. 39). As Bray (1999, p. 9) remarks, private lessons are bigbusiness, particularly in teacher-centred rather than learner-centred education sys-tems (p. 29). Private lessons are an accepted way of life, and reinforce the rotelearning, teacher-centred paradigm in schools in Macau: the school teacher sets theagenda for the private teacher to explain and teach outside school (see also Bray,1999, p. 18). Private lessons buttress up an ailing school teaching paradigm of roteand drill [2].

The effect of testing on young children is to create a mind-set in which passingtests is not only the goal of education but failing tests is to be avoided at all costs;only marks matter, and what is important is that which gains marks. Model answersabound, and marks are deducted where students do not repeat the model answerverbatim; as one respondent mentioned: ‘they [students] think that if they candictate them [lines from the textbook] out during the test, they will already score


high marks’. Here is a school system hooked onto marks, dependent on marks foreducational meaning.

Secondary Education

The model of spoon-feeding and rote learning, powered by the regimen of testing,which commences in primary education, is reinforced at secondary school level.Tests are frequent and commonplace (usually fortnightly per subject, which meansthat ‘students very often have to take two tests a day’, there being up to 13 subjectsin the school curriculum of some schools), and, as with primary schools, they areinternally set, administered and marked. They are tests of achievement of students’ability to reproduce textbook knowledge. The ‘pass mark’ is between 50% and 60%.Students who fail tests and examinations (essentially large-scale tests) have to repeatthe year at school; if they fail the repeat year then, in most cases, they are requiredto leave the school, particularly in the private religious schools. That this leads to‘sink schools’ of rejectees from other schools in Macau is well known. As withprimary schools, the consideration of other forms of assessment (e.g. authentic,formative, portfolio assessment, facilitated self-assessment) is not on the agenda ofmany schools in teacher-centred Macau.

Reporting operates thus: typically subject teachers pass on to class teachers thestudents’ marks from tests in each subject, and class teachers write students’ reportson all subjects, based on those test scores. Formally and informally, teachers useword banks and draw from books of comments that can be attached to overall testscores for reporting purposes. Reports are written by class teachers who have no realknowledge of the students’ performance, capabilities, achievements, strengths,weaknesses, or interest in the subjects; largely they report simply test scores togetherwith an off-the-peg comment.

Whereas many small states are members of local or international examinationfederations, consortia, boards and systems [3] (Bray, 1998), in Macau this is notprevalent. Further, the absence of any state-wide school examinations renders itdif� cult to establish reliability and validity in assessments; there are no externalchecks or controls in the system, with concomitant threats to reliability and validity(Morrison, 1994). As with primary schools, assessment is con� ned to testing oftextbook knowledge, and reliability and validity become de facto the repetition of thatwhich appears in textbooks; it is content driven. If the content could be learnedrobotically, the system would be more ef� cient.

The knowledge that is tested is legitimated through the textbook, and it is thestudents’ responsibility to learn given knowledge—that is why they attend school. Itmay be that the cultural norm of respect for teachers in the Confucian ethic (Lee,1996; Biggs, 1996a, b), is served by not challenging teachers’ judgements or abilitiesto comment on their students’ performance. The teacher is in charge and nodisagreement can be brooked; if the teacher wishes to test students then that is theteacher’s professional right.

Pressure in the secondary school system is exacerbated by the limited duration ofthe sixth form (post-16) education. In many countries preparation for university


entrance and A-level or equivalent (e.g. the International Baccalaureate) is a two-year course; in Macau it is one year, though, in practice, because of the semestersystem, it is several months short of this. Hence syllabuses which are facts-driven arecondensed into a short period of time, placing great pressure on students to learncopious facts in a short time and on teachers to teach nothing but facts in the timeavailable—that is all that is possible in the time. There is little or no time to re� ector to be involved in higher order thinking, particularly as considerable amounts ofteaching time are taken up with testing.

The absence of state-wide assessment makes it almost impossible to determine theeffectiveness or quality of schools. It is impossible to assess the value addeddimension of secondary schooling, which may be convenient, as this enables ques-tionable pedagogical practice to go unchecked. Practice which attends to studentmotivation, self-esteem, personal, social and emotional development, i.e. whichtakes humanitarianism and ‘people’ seriously, takes second place to the ‘emptyvessel’ model of teaching and learning. However, the system has found a way ofcatering for this, by in� ating the marks which students can gain for lower qualityperformance; in short, students can gain marks for poor quality work, so theirself-esteem need not suffer too greatly. There is a requirement for schools to ensurethat enough secondary school students graduate each year in order to maintain eachschool’s reputation and to enable them to continue to attract students in theeducational market. The ‘best’ schools in Macau are never short of applicants, yetthe rigorous evidential base of their success does not exist other than in universityentrance and self-declared excellence. With limited provision of post-16 educationin Macau, competition for sixth form places is high, regardless of the quality of theeducation provided; in a restricted market customers meeting schools’ agendas/dik-tats take precedence over schools serving consumers.

As there is no systematic evidential base for judging schools’ performance inMacau, ‘good’ secondary schools gain their reputation by hearsay evidence and bythe numbers going to university (e.g. in Macau, mainland China, and Taiwan, aswell as to the West), consigning vast numbers of non-university-oriented schoolstudents to no formal recognition of what they have learnt. University entranceexaminations are neither intended for the whole secondary school population nor tobe a state-wide assessment system, yet they have pre-eminence in the minds of manysecondary schools in Macau, and they exert a huge backwash effect on schoolswhose emphasis is on ‘getting their students into university’. Many universityentrance examinations are facts-driven.

Part of the problem of implementing change is the comparatively low level ofquali� cation or training of teachers. It is only in the last decade that primary teachershave been expected to have initial teacher training, and it is still not compulsory(until 1989 only 50% had junior (form three) education (Rosa, 1990); in 1995 thenumber of trained teachers rose to 59.5%, with 43% having a teaching quali� cation(Direccao dos Servicos de Educacao e Juventude, 1995). In Study 1 (see below)62.5% of teachers had a degree, and in Study 2 (see below) 48.1% of teachers hada degree; however, possessing a degree in Macau is no guarantee of having received


any teacher training at all (a situation which the new administration is striving torectify).

The two studies that follow report numerical data to complement the qualitativedata on the issues identi� ed above.

Study 1

Respondents were asked how much they used a range of means of assessingstudents, and the results are reported in Table II.

The results are striking and demonstrate the huge use of teachers’ own made-uptests (categories 4 and 5—‘quite a lot’ and ‘a very great deal’—total 94.4%, whichis 31.2 percentage points away from its nearest rival ‘classroom observation’(63.2%)). If one combines categories 4 and 5—both indications of quite extensiveuse—then only two items score over 60%—teachers’ own tests and classroomobservation. Indeed, combining categories 4 and 5, yields only eight items, barelyover half, which score over 25%. Further, if one combines categories 1, 2 and 3—allindications of limited use—then the only items which do not show limited use are:

(a) records of students’ progress (which is essentially a record of test scores)(44.5%);

(b) records of what students have actually done/achieved (46.7%);(c) problem-solving situations (42.1%); and(d) classroom observation (36.9%).

The same combination of categories 1, 2 and 3 reveals a dearth of the use ofauthentic assessment through projects (83.4%), portfolios (73.7%), essays (80.3%),interviews (63.2%) and students’ self-assessments (68.4%). The picture is clear:assessment is largely con� ned to teachers’ tests.

Teachers were asked for their responses to a range of assessment practices inMacau; the results are reported in Table III. The questions were deliberatelyleading, in some cases, in order to try to avoid the commonly observed Chinesephenomenon of respondents preferring to ‘sit on the fence’ about issues. Table IIIindicates several features:

(a) teachers are generally supportive of the testing regime (items 1, 3, 17), eventhough it is imposed (items 4, 8, 10, 11), takes up so much time (item 17), andmay demotivate students (item 14);

(b) there is limited room for disagreement (items 8, 9);(c) testing is largely con� ned to textbook knowledge (item 2) in an overfull,

knowledge-based curriculum (item 5);(d) testing leads to passivity and compliance (item 15), which may be requisite as

a control strategy for large classes (item 7);(e) students are largely motivated by the need to gain marks in tests (items 12, 13,

14, 16);(f) testing is not a certain way of ensuring learning (item 16);


TA

BL

EII

.T

he

amou

nt

ofu

seof

dif

fere

nt

way

sof

asse

ssin

gst

ud

ents

12

34

5N

otat

all

Ver

ylit

tle

Ali

ttle

Qu

ite

alo

tV

ery

grea

td

eal

Tot

al

Co

mm

erci

ally

pu

blis

hed

test

s3

(15.

8%

)9

(47

.4%

)4

(21

.1%

)3

(15

.8%

)1

9(1

00%

)Y

our

own

mad

e-u

pte

sts

1(5

.6%

)1

3(7

2.2

%)

4(2

2.2

%)

18

(100

%)

Oth

erte

ach

ers’

mad

e-u

pte

sts

3(1

5.8

%)

8(4

2.1

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

19

(100

%)

Ess

ays

4(2

2.2

%)

3(1

6.7

%)

8(4

4.4

%)

2(1

1.1

%)

1(5

.6%

)1

8(1

00%

)S

amp

les

ofst

ud

ents

’w

ork

4(2

1.1

%)

6(3

1.6

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

19

(100

%)

Stu

den

ts’

self

-ass

essm

ents

2(1

0.5

%)

7(3

6.8

%)

6(3

1.6

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

19

(100

%)

Stu

den

ts’

pro

ject

s2

(16.

7%

)3

(16

.7%

)9

(50

%)

4(2

2.2

%)

18

(100

%)

Rec

ord

sof

stu

den

ts’

pro

gres

s3

(16

.7%

)5

(27

.8%

)8

(44

.4%

)2

(11

.1%

)1

8(1

00%

)In

terv

iew

sw

ith

stu

den

ts6

(31

.6%

)5

(31

.6%

)7

(36

.8%

)1

9(1

00%

)S

tud

ents

’p

ortf

olio

sof

wo

rk4

(21

.1%

)1

0(5

2.6

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

19

(100

%)

Stu

den

ts’

pre

sen

tati

ons

1(5

.3%

)2

(10

.6%

)9

(47

.4%

)6

(31

.6%

)1

(5.3

%)

19

(100

%)

Evi

den

ceof

wh

atst

ud

ents

hav

e1

(6.7

%)

6(4

0%

)8

(53

.3%

)1

5(1

00%

)ac

tual

lyd

one/

ach

ieve

din

ever

yday

sch

ool

life

(e.g

.ap

art

from

ina

test

situ

atio

n)

Pro

ble

m-s

olv

ing

situ

atio

ns

2(1

0.5

%)

6(3

1.6

%)

10

(52

.6%

)1

(5.3

%)

19

(100

%)

You

rcl

assr

oom

obse

rvat

ion

1(5

.3%

)6

(31

.6%

)1

2(6

3.2

%)

19

(100

%)

Tot

al%

ofov

eral

lto

tal

(wit

hro

un

din

g)2

0(8

.1%

)5

8(2

0.9

%)

84

(33

%)

89

(34

.8%

)9

(3.5

%)

260

(100

%)

Testing to Destruction 301T

AB

LE

III.

Tea

cher

s’vi

ews

ofas

sess

men

tp

ract

ices

inM

acau

12

34

5IT

EM

No

tat

all

Ver

ylit

tle

Alit

tle

Qu

ite

alo

tV

ery

grea

td

eal

To

tal

1.H

owsa

tis�

edar

eyo

uw

ith

the

9(4

7.4

%)

10

(52.

6%

)19

(10

0%)

kin

ds

ofas

sess

men

tsyo

ud

o?2.

How

far

do

the

asse

ssm

ents

test

1(5

.3%

)5

(26.

3%

)1

3(6

8.4

%)

19(1

00%

)st

ud

ents

’te

xtb

ook

know

led

ge?

3.H

owu

sefu

ld

oyo

u�

nd

you

r4

(21.

1%

)1

5(7

8.9

%)

19(1

00%

)as

sess

men

ts?

4.H

owm

uch

con

trol

do

you

hav

e3

(15

.8%

)10

(52

.6%

)6

(31

.6%

)19

(10

0%)

over

test

ing

inyo

ur

clas

s?5.

How

mu

chd

oyo

uh

ave

toco

ver

a2

(10

.5%

)6

(31.

6%

)9

(47

.4%

)2

(10.

5%

)19

(10

0%)

know

led

ge-b

ased

sylla

bu

s?6.

How

mu

chd

oyo

ur

stu

den

ts5

(26

.3%

)4

(21

.1%

)5

(26.

3%

)5

(26

.3%

)19

(10

0%)

rece

ive

pri

vate

less

ons?

7.T

ow

hat

exte

nt

do

you

use

test

ing

2(1

1.1

%)

3(1

6.7

%)

12

(66.

7%

)1

(5.6

%)

18(1

00%

)to

con

trol

larg

ecl

asse

s?8.

How

far

are

you

able

tod

isag

ree

wit

hth

eam

oun

tan

dn

atu

reo

fte

stin

g5

(27

.8%

)9

(50%

)4

(22

.2%

)18

(10

0%)

inyo

ur

sch

ool

?9.

How

far

are

you

able

toag

ree

wit

h2

(10

.5%

)6

(31.

6%

)1

0(5

2.6

%)

1(5

.3%

)19

(10

0%)

the

amou

nt

and

nat

ure

of

test

ing

inyo

ur

sch

ool?

10.

How

mu

chp

rin

cip

alp

ress

ure

is2

(10

.5%

)10

(52

.6%

)4

(21

.1%

)3

(15.

8%

)19

(10

0%)

ther

efo

rth

eki

nd

ofas

sess

men

t?11

.H

owm

uch

pri

nci

pal

pre

ssu

reis

2(1

0.5

%)

10(5

2.6

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

2(1

0.5

%)

19(1

00%

)th

ere

for

the

amou

nt

of

asse

ssm

ent?

12.

How

far

do

stu

den

tseq

uat

e1

(5.3

%)

7(3

6.8

%)

8(4

2.1

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

19(1

00%

)su

cces

sw

ith

gain

ing

mar

ks?

13.

How

mu

char

est

ud

ents

1(5

.3%

)6

(31.

6%

)1

0(5

2.6

%)

2(1

0.5

%)

19(1

00%

)m

otiv

ated

pos

itiv

ely

by

the

nee

dto

gain

mar

ks?


TA

BL

EII

I.—

Con

tinue

d.

12

34

5IT

EM

No

tat

all

Ver

ylit

tle

Alit

tle

Qu

ite

alo

tV

ery

grea

td

eal

To

tal

14.

How

mu

char

est

ud

ents

1(5

.3%

)6

(31.

6%

)9

(47

.4%

)2

(10.

5%

)1

(5.3

%)

19(1

00

%)

mot

ivat

edn

egat

ivel

yb

yth

en

eed

toga

inm

arks

?15

.H

owfa

rd

oes

the

test

ing

lead

to1

(5.3

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

6(3

1.6

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

19(1

00

%)

pass

ivit

yan

dco

mp

lian

ce?

16.

How

far

doe

ste

stin

gen

sure

that

2(1

0.5

%)

2(1

0.5

%)

7(3

6.8

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

19(1

00

%)

stu

den

tsle

arn

?17

.H

owfa

ris

ther

eto

om

uch

tim

e1

(5.3

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

6(3

1.6

%)

6(3

1.6

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

19(1

00

%)

spen

ton

test

ing?

Tot

al%

ofov

eral

lto

tal

10

(3.1

%)

39

(11.

7%

)1

17(3

6.5

%)

130

(40.

5%

)25

(7.8

%)

321

(10

0%

)(w

ith

rou

nd

ing)


(g) testing reinforces a facts-based curriculum (item 2);(h) many students receive private lessons (item 6).

It is important that teachers, so imbued with testing, feel that its advantagesrender the disadvantages comparatively slight. Teachers were asked their views onthe importance of speci� ed purposes of testing. The results are reported in Table IV.

The table indicates several features:

(i) teachers count as particularly important the value of testing of knowledgeacquisition (item 1), diagnosis (item 2), certi� cation (item 4), providing evi-dence of students’ achievement (item 6), and motivating students (item 9);

(ii) teachers also value testing for curriculum planning (item 3), selection (item 5),indicating how effective the school is (item 15), controlling what students learn(item 13), emphasising what is important in the curriculum (item 14), chartingrates of progress (item 7);

(iii) testing is not seen as important for comparing students (item 8), controllingstudents (item 10), controlling teachers (item 11) and holding them account-able (item 16);

(iv) testing is also used as a measure of teacher effectiveness (item 12).

The picture that emerges is of testing serving a very wide range of purposes here,not the least of which is to exert control (e.g. items 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16), to act asa spur to learning (e.g. the massive representation of category 5 for item 9), and toemphasise what is important (Spearman’s rho was used to correlate items 10 and 14,and a positive correlation of .510 (r 5 0.26) was found). A negative correlation of2 .376 (r 5 0.113) was found between item 13 (‘control what students learn’) anditem 9 (‘to motivate students’). Diagnosis is de� ned largely as a matter of � nding outhow much the students have learnt (items 1 and 2). Certi� cates are awarded on thebasis of test scores (Spearman’s rho was used to correlate items 1 and 4, and apositive correlation of .526 (r 5 0.21) was found). Tables III and IV reveal wide-spread use of testing, which serves a wide range of purposes, and which controlsstudents, even though the outcomes of such control may demotivate them.

Study 1 also asked respondents for an indication of the amount of marking (oftests) that they conducted. The results are revealing (percentages are of respon-dents):

· The average number of pieces of work marked daily was: less than 30: 11.1%;30–49: 22.2%; 50–69: 5.6%; 70–99: 22.2%; 100–150: 27.8%; over 150: 11.1%;

· The frequency of testing each class was:More than once per week: 27.8%Once a week: 22.2%Once a fortnight: 16.7%Between once a fortnight and once a month: 11.1%Less than once a month: 22.2%

· The time spent on assessment and marking each week was:Less than � ve hours: 15.8%5–14 hours: 52.6%

304 K. Morrison & F. H. TangT

AB

LE

IV.

Tea

cher

s’vi

ews

of

the

imp

orta

nce

ofse

vera

lp

urp

oses

ofte

stin

g

12

34

5H

owim

por

tan

tar

eth

efo

llow

ing

Not

atal

lV

ery

littl

eA

littl

eQ

uit

eV

ery

pu

rpos

esof

test

ing?

imp

orta

nt

imp

orta

nt

imp

orta

nt

imp

orta

nt

imp

orta

nt

Tot

al

1.T

ote

stst

ud

ents

’ac

qu

isit

ion

of3

(15.

8%

)1

1(5

7.9

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

19(1

00%

)kn

ow

led

ge/in

form

atio

n2.

To

dia

gnos

est

ud

ents

’1

(5.3

%)

1(5

.3%

)3

(15.

8%

)6

(31.

6%

)8

(42.

1%

)19

(10

0%)

stre

ngt

hs/

wea

knes

ses

3.T

oin

�u

ence

you

rcu

rric

ulu

m2

(10

.5%

)6

(31.

6%

)1

1(5

7.9

%)

19(1

00%

)p

lan

nin

g4.

To

awar

d1

(5.3

%)

1(5

.3%

)6

(31.

6%

)3

(15.

8%

)8

(42.

1%

)19

(10

0%)

qu

ali�

cati

ons/

cert

i�ca

tes

5.T

ose

lect

stu

den

tsfo

rfu

ture

1(5

.3%

)1

0(5

2.6

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

19(1

00%

)ed

uca

tion

/cla

sses

6.T

op

rovi

de

evid

ence

ofst

ud

ents

’1

(5.3

%)

1(5

.3%

)9

(47.

4%

)8

(42.

1%

)19

(10

0%)

ach

ieve

men

t7.

To

char

tst

ud

ents

’ra

tes

of1

(5.3

%)

2(1

0.5

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

9(4

7.4

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

19(1

00%

)p

rogr

ess

8.T

oco

mp

are

stu

den

tsw

ith

each

3(1

5.8

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

7(3

6.8

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

1(5

.3%

)19

(10

0%)

othe

r9.

To

mot

ivat

est

ud

ents

5(2

6.3

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

9(4

7.4

%)

19(1

00%

)10

.T

od

isci

plin

e/co

ntr

olst

ud

ents

1(5

.3%

)2

(10

.5%

)7

(36.

8%

)8

(42.

1%

)1

(5.3

%)

19(1

00%

)11

.T

od

isci

plin

e/co

ntr

olte

ach

ers

1(5

.3%

)4

(21

.1%

)6

(31.

6%

)7

(36.

8%

)1

(5.3

%)

19(1

00%

)12

.T

oin

dic

ate

how

effe

ctiv

e1

(5.3

%)

2(1

0.5

%)

5(2

6.3

%)

9(4

7.4

%)

2(1

0.5

%)

19(1

00%

)te

ach

ers

hav

eb

een

13.

To

con

trol

wh

atst

ud

ents

lear

n1

(5.3

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

4(2

1.1

%)

8(4

2.1

%)

3(1

5.8

%)

19(1

00%

)14

.T

oem

ph

asis

ew

hat

is8

(42.

1%

)1

0(5

2.6

%)

1(5

.3%

)19

(10

0%)

imp

orta

nt

inth

ecu

rric

ulu

m15

.T

oin

dic

ate

how

effe

ctiv

eth

e2

(10

.5%

)4

(21.

1%

)8

(42.

1%

)5

(26.

3%

)19

(10

0%)

sch

ool

is16

.T

oh

old

teac

her

sre

spon

sib

le/

7(3

8.9

%)

9(5

0%)

2(1

1.1

%)

18(1

00%

)ac

cou

nta

ble

for

stu

den

ts’

pro

gres

sT

otal

%o

fo

vera

llto

tal

10(3

.3%

)32

(10

.7%

)8

8(2

9.1

%)

11

4(3

7.5

%)

59

(19.

4%

)3

03(1

00%

)(w

ith

rou

nd

ing)


15–24 hours: 15.8%Over 24 hours: 15.8%

· The time spent on testing each week was:1–5 hours: 72.2%6–10 hours: 16.7%11–14 hours: 11.1%

Clearly testing occupies a prime position in these teachers’ and students’ lives.The modal score of between 100 and 150 pieces of work to be marked daily, isstaggering, as is the modal score of testing each class more than once a week [4]. Interms of teachers’ time, the modal scores of spending between 5 and 14 hours perweek on marking, and the equivalent of nearly one working day per week on testing(1–5 hours) [5] demonstrates how deeply saturated testing is in the minds ofteachers. That saturation, when coupled with the earlier observations of the accept-ability of testing by teachers (Tables III and IV) is, perhaps, disturbing.

Study 2

Study 2 used a proportionate strati� ed sample to ensure representativeness, withdetailed piloting of the instruments to ensure adequate coverage of research items,as well as accessibility and comprehensibility of the questionnaire wording andlayout.

The extent of tests and examinations as the sole assessment method in Englishlearning in Macau is widespread. When asked how much the assessment wascontrolled by tests and examinations only 3.2% of respondents indicated ‘not at all’or ‘very little’; 38.1% indicated ‘a little’, 39.2% indicated ‘quite a lot’ and 18.6%indicated ‘a very great deal’. This is clear evidence that the respondents recognisedthe extent of relying on tests and examinations as major assessment methods. Whenstatistics were calculated (Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests as appropriate)to determine whether the distributions varied statistically signi� cantly according tothe nominal characteristics of the sample (i.e. r # .05), only two cases were foundwhere the distributions were statistically signi� cant, i.e. the data hold true, regard-less of the nominal characteristics of the sample.

Table V presents the rating scale data of teachers’ perceptions of problemsconcerning tests and examinations for English in Macau.

The modal score for 9 out of the 11 items is category 3 (‘quite strong’),accounting for 35% of the total voting, whilst the modal score for items 1 and 3 iscategory 4 (‘strong’), accounting for 7.5% of the total. Items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 receivehigh voting in category 5 (‘very strong’), with item 7 receiving the highest voting(27.8%). When categories 4 and 5 are totalled for each item, item 1 receives a scoreof 57.8%, item 3 receives a score of 59.8%, and item 7 receives a score of 60.2%.All 11 items had a very low voting in category 1 (‘very weak’) and category 2(‘weak’). Indeed, the percentages for the combined categories 1 and 2 only amountsto 9.1% of the total voting. Overall, the scores are clearly skewed towards the uppercategories 3, 4 and 5, thus indicating that considerable importance is given to all the


TA

BL

EV

.T

he

stre

ngt

hs

ofp

rob

lem

sin

test

san

dex

amin

atio

ns

12

34

5ve

ryq

uit

eve

ryw

eak

wea

kst

ron

gst

ron

gst

ron

gIT

EM

pro

ble

mp

rob

lem

pro

ble

mp

rob

lem

pro

ble

mT

otal

1.

Th

ere

are

too

man

yte

sts/

exam

s3

(1%

)1

3(3

.1%

)3

4(3

8.1

%)

44(3

9.2

%)

14(1

8.6

%)

108

(10

0%

)2

.T

ests

/exa

ms

dom

inat

eth

e1

(0.9

%)

8(7

.5%

)4

1(3

8.3

%)

37(3

4.6

%)

20(1

8.7

%)

107

(10

0%

)cu

rric

ulu

m3

.G

reat

emp

has

isis

pla

ced

on7

(6.5

%)

36

(33

.6%

)46

(43

%)

18(1

6.8

%)

107

(10

0%

)te

sts/

exam

s4

.T

her

eis

littl

eem

phas

iso

n1

(0.9

%)

10

(9.3

%)

47

(43

.9%

)39

(36

.4%

)10

(9.3

%)

107

(10

0%

)ot

her

form

sof

asse

ssm

ent

5.

Th

ere

isin

suf�

cien

tse

lf-

7(6

.6%

)4

6(4

3.4

%)

44(4

1.5

%)

9(8

.5%

)1

06(1

00

%)

asse

ssm

ent

6.

Th

ere

isin

suf�

cien

tse

lf-

9(8

.3%

)5

3(4

9.1

%)

36(3

3.3

%)

10(9

.3%

)1

08(1

00

%)

dia

gnos

is7

.S

tud

ents

forg

etth

ings

afte

r6

(5.6

%)

37

(34

.3%

)35

(32

.4%

)30

(27

.8%

)1

08(1

00

%)

the

test

s/ex

ams

8.

Stu

den

tm

otiv

atio

nis

low

du

e8

(7.6

%)

42

(40

%)

36(3

4.3

%)

19(1

8.1

%)

105

(10

0%

)to

man

yte

sts/

exam

s9

.S

tud

ents

’se

lf-e

stee

msu

ffer

s5

(4.8

%)

47

(44

.8%

)42

(40

%)

11(1

0.5

%)

105

(10

0%

)1

0.S

tud

ents

rese

nt

test

s/ex

ams

10

(9.5

%)

43

(41

%)

37(3

5.2

%)

15(1

4.3

%)

105

(10

0%

)1

1.T

each

ers

rese

nt

2(1

.9%

)1

6(1

5.2

%)

53

(50

.5%

)28

(26

.7%

)6

(5.7

%)

105

(10

0%

)te

sts/

exam

sT

ota

l7

(0.6

%)

99

(8.5

%)

479

(40

.9%

)4

24(3

6.2

%)

162

(13

.8%

)11

71(1

00

%)

(%of

the

over

all

tota

l)


11 factors. Tests and examinations appear to be highly problematic. When Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis statistics were calculated to determine whether any ofthe distributions varied statistically signi� cantly according to the nominal character-istics of the sample (i.e. r # .05), in only 9.1% of cases were the distributionsstatistically signi� cant, suggesting that the data hold true, regardless of the nominalcharacteristics of the sample.

Table VI presents the rating scale data for teachers’ perceptions of the advantagesof tests and examinations on effective English learning in Macau.

The modal score for all the 8 items is category 3 (‘quite useful’), 47.6% of thetotal voting. Overall, all the items in this category gained very high voting, indicatingtheir importance. Similarly in category 4 (‘very useful’), all 8 items had high scores,with their sum amounting to 31.2% of the total voting. Indeed, the sum of thepercentages for categories 3 and 4 amounts to 78.7% of the total voting, indicatingtheir overall importance. This is clear evidence that the respondents attached greatimportance to the advantages of tests and examinations. When Mann–Whitney andKruskal–Wallis statistics were calculated to determine whether any of the distribu-tions varied statistically signi� cantly according to the nominal characteristics of thesample (i.e. r # .05), in only 6.8% of cases were the distributions statisticallysigni� cant, suggesting that the data hold true, regardless of the nominal characteris-tics of the sample.

Table VII presents the rating scale data for teachers’ perceptions of the disadvan-tages of tests and examinations on effective English learning in Macau.

The modal score for 13 out of the 15 items is category 3 (‘a little disadvantage’),37.5% of the total voting, whilst the modal score for item 8 (‘students/teachers donot know about other forms of assessment’) is category 4 (‘very little disadvantage’),3.1% of the total voting, indicating the importance of these items. The voting incategory 2 for item 8 (‘students/teachers do not know about other forms ofassessment’) received the lowest score (3.6%), implying that the respondents at-tached limited importance to this disadvantage. If one combines categories 1 and 2,� ve important points emerge:

(a) the very low score for item 8 (3.6%) (‘students/teachers do not know aboutother forms of assessment’);

(b) the low score on item 14 (‘tests lead to super� cial learning’) (19.8%);(c) the low score on item 4 (‘tests put undue pressure on teachers’) (27.9%);(d) the low score on item 4 (‘tests put undue pressure on students’) (31.8%); and(e) the low score on item 12 (‘tests exert a narrowing effect on the curriculum’)

(32.2%).

What in other societies teachers might regard as major problems, in Macau are notseen to be really as disadvantageous. The voting for the items in category 4 (‘verylittle disadvantage’) is high; indeed, the sum of the items in this category amountsto 19.6% of the total voting. All the items in category 1 (‘a very great disadvantage’)received a very low voting; the total amounts to only 6.2% of total voting, indicatingthe limited importance attached to this category by the respondents, i.e. theygenerally did not perceive there to be very great disadvantages in all the items listed.


TA

BL

EV

I.T

each

ers’

per

cep

tio

ns

ofad

van

tage

sof

test

s/ex

amin

atio

ns

12

34

5n

otat

Ad

van

tage

so

fte

sts

all

alit

tle

qu

ite

very

and

exam

inat

ion

su

sefu

lu

sefu

lu

sefu

lu

sefu

les

sen

tial

Tot

al

1.

Th

eyen

sure

that

15

(13.

6%

)5

6(5

0.9

%)

30(2

7.3

%)

9(8

.2%

)11

0(1

00%

)st

ud

ents

hav

ele

arn

t2

.T

hey

mak

est

ud

ents

21

(19.

1%

)4

3(3

9.1

%)

41(3

7.3

%)

5(4

.5%

)11

0(1

00%

)le

arn

3.

Th

ey�

nd

out

wh

at1

2(1

0.9

%)

55

(50%

)32

(29

.1%

)11

(10

%)

110

(100

%)

stu

den

tsh

ave

lear

ned

4.

Th

eyte

stbo

ok1

6(1

4.5

%)

56

(50.

9%

)32

(29

.1%

)6

(5.5

%)

110

(100

%)

know

led

ge5

.T

hey

are

obje

ctiv

e3

(2.7

%)

23

(20.

9%

)5

8(5

2.7

%)

25(2

2.7

%)

1(0

.9%

)11

0(1

00%

)6

.T

hey

asse

ss1

9(1

7.3

%)

53

(48.

2%

)36

(32

.7%

)2

(1.8

%)

110

(100

%)

ind

ivid

ual

s7

.T

hey

are

syll

abu

s-2

2(2

0%)

44

(40%

)42

(38

.2%

)2

(1.8

%)

110

(100

%)

rela

ted

8.

Th

eyte

ach

stu

den

tsto

11

(10.

3%

)5

2(4

8.6

%)

36(3

3.6

%)

8(7

.5%

)10

7(1

00%

)co

pe

wit

hte

sts/

exam

sT

otal

3(3

%)

13

9(1

5.8

%)

417

(47.

5%

)2

74(3

1.2

%)

44(5

%)

877

(100

%)

(%of

the

over

all

tota

l)

Testing to Destruction 309T

AB

LE

VII

.T

each

ers’

per

cep

tion

sof

dis

adva

nta

ges

of

test

s/ex

amin

atio

ns

12

34

5ve

ryve

ryD

isad

van

tage

so

fte

sts

grea

tq

uit

ea

alit

tle

littl

en

oan

dex

amin

atio

ns

dis

adva

nta

ged

isad

van

tage

dis

adva

nta

ged

isad

van

tage

dis

adva

nta

geT

otal

1.T

ests

/exa

ms

are

in�

exib

le2

(1.8

%)

36

(32

.4%

)6

0(5

4.1

%)

7(6

.3%

)6

(5.4

%)

111

(10

0%

)2.

Th

eyon

lyte

stb

ook

know

led

ge6

(5.4

%)

44

(39

.6%

)3

4(3

0.6

%)

24

(21.

6%

)3

(2.7

%)

111

(10

0%

)3.

Th

eyp

ut

un

du

ep

ress

ure

5(4

.5%

)3

0(2

7.3

%)

50

(45.

5%

)2

1(1

9.1

%)

4(3

.6%

)1

10(1

00

%)

onst

ud

ents

4.T

hey

pu

tu

nd

ue

pre

ssu

re4

(3.6

%)

27

(24

.3%

)5

2(4

6.8

%)

26

(23.

4%

)2

(1.8

%)

111

(10

0%

)on

teac

her

s5.

Stu

den

tsst

ud

yto

pass

15(1

3.9

%)

33

(30

.6%

)3

3(3

0.6

%)

18

(16.

7%

)9

(8.3

%)

108

(10

0%

)6.

Stu

den

tsfo

rget

afte

rte

sts/

exam

s14

(12

.5%

)3

3(2

9.5

%)

38

(33.

9%

)2

2(1

9.6

%)

5(4

.5%

)1

12(1

00

%)

7.S

tud

ents

are

no

tin

volv

ed8

(7.2

%)

34

(30

.6%

)4

0(3

6%)

25

(22.

5%

)4

(3.6

%)

111

(10

0%

)in

self

-ass

essm

ent

8.S

tud

ents

/tea

cher

sd

on

otkn

ow4

(3.6

%)

27

(24.

3%

)5

2(4

6.8

%)

28(2

5.2

%)

111

(10

0%

)ab

out

oth

erfo

rms

ofas

sess

men

t9.

Tes

ts/e

xam

sb

uild

infa

ilure

6(5

.5%

)3

2(2

9.4

%)

48

(44%

)1

8(1

6.5

%)

5(4

.6%

)1

09(1

00

%)

10.

Stu

den

tsre

sen

tth

em5

(4.5

%)

37

(33

.3%

)4

3(3

8.7

%)

25

(22.

5%

)1

(0.9

%)

111

(10

0%

)11

.S

tud

ents

only

lear

nw

hat

14(1

2.7

%)

33

(30

%)

38

(34.

5%

)1

9(1

7.3

%)

6(5

.5%

)1

10(1

00

%)

will

appe

aron

test

s12

.T

hey

exer

ta

nar

row

ing

5(4

.5%

)3

0(2

7%

)5

7(5

1.4

%)

17

(15.

3%

)2

(1.8

%)

111

(10

0%

)ef

fect

on

the

curr

icu

lum

13.

Th

eyp

un

ish

the

wea

ker

8(7

.3%

)3

1(2

8.2

%)

52

(47.

3%

)1

6(1

4.5

%)

3(2

.7%

)1

10(1

00

%)

stu

den

ts14

.T

hey

lead

tosu

per�

cial

2(1

.8%

)2

0(1

8%

)6

8(6

1.3

%)

17

(15.

3%

)4

(3.6

%)

111

(10

0%

)le

arn

ing

15.

Th

eyle

adto

pas

sive

lear

nin

g9

(8.2

%)

34

(30

.9%

)4

2(3

8.2

%)

18

(16.

4%

)7

(6.4

%)

110

(10

0%

)

Tot

al1

03(6

.2%

)4

58

(27

.6%

)69

2(4

1.2

%)

325

(19.

6%

)89

(5.4

%)

1657

(10

0%

)(%

of

the

over

all

tota

l)


TA

BL

EV

III.

Cor

rela

tion

sof

vari

able

sfr

omS

tud

y2

(coe

f�ci

ents

and

sign

i�ca

nce

leve

ls)

Var

iab

leO

ne:

Too

man

yte

sts

and

exam

sC

orre

late

sw

ith

:

Do

not

mot

ivat

est

ud

ents

enou

gh(.

237

;r

50

.01

5)D

idac

tic

met

ho

ds

(.2

95;

r5

0.0

02)

Rel

yon

dri

llle

arn

ing

and

mem

ori

sati

on(.

232

r5

0.0

18

)L

ittl

eem

ph

asis

onu

nd

erst

and

ing

(.2

56;

r5

0.0

09)

Cu

rric

ulu

mre

qu

ires

mu

chm

emor

isat

ion

(.3

11;

r5

0.0

01)

Rel

yto

om

uch

onte

xtb

ooks

(.2

30;

r5

0.0

18)

Cu

rric

ulu

mto

o�

xed

and

rigi

d(.

26

1;r

50

.00

7)

Sp

oon

-fee

dst

ud

ents

(.2

44;

r5

0.0

12)

Var

iab

leO

ne:

Tes

tsan

dex

ams

dom

inat

eth

ecu

rric

ulu

mC

orre

late

sw

ith

:D

on

otm

otiv

ate

stu

den

tsen

ough

(.2

68;

r5

0.0

06)

Tex

tbo

ok-d

rive

n(.

25

4;r

50

.009

)S

poo

n-f

eed

stu

den

ts(.

296

;r

50

.00

2)C

urr

icu

lum

too

�xe

dan

dri

gid

(.3

25;

r5

0.0

01

)C

urr

icu

lum

req

uir

esm

uch

mem

oris

atio

n(.

331

;r

50

.00

1)C

urr

icu

lum

con

tain

sto

om

uch

(.3

79;

r5

0.0

00)

Do

not

use

wid

era

nge

ofte

ach

ing

styl

es(.

237

;r

50

.03

7)

Var

iab

leO

ne:

Gre

atem

ph

asis

on

test

san

dex

ams

Cor

rela

tes

wit

h:

Did

acti

cm

eth

od

s(.

29

2;r

50

.00

3)

Sp

oon

-fee

dst

ud

ents

(.2

41;

r5

0.0

13)

Too

sylla

bu

s-b

ased

(.2

52;

r5

0.0

09

)C

urr

icu

lum

too

�xe

dan

dri

gid

(.3

28;

r5

0.0

01

)C

urr

icu

lum

too

nar

row

(.25

5;r

50.

008

)T

ext-

boo

kd

rive

n(.

245

;r

50.

011

)C

urr

icu

lum

req

uir

esm

uch

mem

oris

atio

n(.

331

;r

50

.00

1)

Var

iab

leO

ne:

Lit

tle

emp

has

ison

oth

eras

sess

men

tsC

orre

late

sw

ith

:D

on

otm

otiv

ate

stu

den

tsen

ough

(.3

63;

r5

0.0

00)

Lit

tle

emp

has

ison

un

der

stan

din

g(.

29

8;r

50

.002

)S

poo

n-f

eed

stu

den

ts(.

450

;r

50

.00

0)R

ely

too

mu

chon

text

boo

ks(.

30

8;r

50

.001

)T

oosy

llab

us-

bas

ed(.

236

;r

50

.01

5)

Exa

m-o

rien

ted

(.2

49;

r5

0.0

10)

Em

ph

asis

esro

tele

arn

ing

and

mem

oris

atio

n(.

342

;r

50.

000

)T

extb

ook

-dri

ven

(.2

61;

r5

0.0

07)


When Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis statistics were calculated to determinewhether any of the distributions varied statistically signi� cantly according to thenominal characteristics of the sample (i.e. r # .05), in only 5.5% of cases were thedistributions statistically signi� cant, suggesting that the data hold true, regardless ofthe nominal characteristics of the sample.

A correlation matrix was constructed in order to discover important relationshipswhich tests had with other factors, using Spearman’s rho. Table VIII presents onlythose correlations where r # 0.05:

The clear messages from Table VIII are that: (a) there are too many tests andexaminations, and these correlate strongly with student demotivation; (b) tests andexaminations dominate and narrow the curriculum and correlate strongly withover-full curricula; (c) tests and examinations correlate strongly with didactic,textbook-driven methods, drill, rote learning and memorisation, and spoon-feeding.

Principal Components Analysis

In order to obtain conceptually similar and signi� cant clusters of issues from TablesV, VI, and VII, principal component analyses with varimax rotation and KaiserNormalisation were conducted. The scree test was used to determine the number offactors, and Eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.00 were extracted. With regardto the 11 variables in Table V, the scree test and orthogonal rotation of the factorsyielded two factors, accounting for 35.7% and 22.4% of the total variance respect-ively. The factor loadings are presented in Table IX.

TABLE IX. Factor loadings for rotated component matrix fromTable V

Component

Variables 1 2

Too many tests and exams .859 2 1.E-02Tests and exams dominate curriculum .756 .152Great emphasis on tests and exams .735 .319Little emphasis on other assessments .408 .495Insuf� cient self-assessment .179 .824Insuf� cient self-diagnosis by students .129 .879Forget things after the exams .655 .310Low motivation due to tests and exams .651 .304Self-esteem suffers from failures .580 .533Resents tests and exams .605 .370Teachers resent tests and exams .553 .192

To enhance the interpretability of the factors, only items with factor loadings of. 0.55 for factor one and . 0.82 for factor two were selected for inclusion in theirrespective factors. Factor one is named declining motivation because of the domination


TABLE X. Factor loadings for rotated component matrix from Table VI

Component

Variables 1 2 3

Ensure students study 2 6.994E-02 .828 .267Tests/exams put pressure on students .560 .403 .207To know what students have learnt .308 .818 2 .109Test book knowledge .617 5.50E-02 .421Are fair/objective 2 1.555E-02 1.80E-02 .908Fair as individual assessment .378 .253 .560Closely related to syllabus .721 .262 .140Teach students to cope with .827 2 7.1E-02 2 .111

of tests and examinations, and factor two is named insuf� cient opportunity for self-assess-ment.

With regard to the 8 variables in Table VI, the scree test and orthogonal rotationof the factors yielded three factors, accounting for 26.8%, 20.7% and 18.4% of thetotal variance respectively. The factor loadings are presented in Table X.

To enhance the interpretability of the factors, only items with factor loadings of. 0.61 for factor one, . 0.81 for factor two and . 0.56 were selected for inclusionin their respective factors. Factor one is named test, textbook and syllabus-driventeaching, factor two is named using tests to ensure that students study, and factor threeis named tests are fair ways of assessing individuals.

With regard to the 15 variables in Table VII, the scree test and orthogonalrotation of the factors yielded three factors, accounting for 25.4%, 22.7% and15.6% of the total variance respectively. The factor loadings are presented in TableXI.

To enhance the interpretability of the factors, only items with factor loadings of. 0.61 for factor one, . 0.67 for factor two and . 0.77 were selected for inclusionin their respective factors. Factor one is named the super� ciality and in-built failure oftests and examinations, factor two is named students learn only for the sake of the test andexaminations, and factor three is named tests and examinations put undue pressure on allparties.

What is signi� cant is that these eight factors accord strongly with the analysis ofthe data in Study 2 and indicate not only the overwhelmingly narrowing effect,super� ciality of learning and demotivation that tests and examinations cause, butalso that, nevertheless, the sample in the study regarded tests and examinations asfair.

The overall messages from Study 2 are that:

· Tests and examinations dominate the kinds and amounts of assessments anddominate the curriculum, reinforcing its rigidity and narrowness;

· There was a marked neglect, absence and lack of awareness of forms and amountsof assessments other than testing and examinations;


TABLE XI. Factor loadings for rotated component matrix from Table VII

Component

Variables 1 2 3

Tests/exams in� exible .723 2 4.67E-02 .218Only test book knowledge .665 .204 .254Put undue pressure on students .229 .199 .770Undue pressure on teachers 2 6.733E-02 5.429E-02 .783Students study to pass 7.958E-02 .749 .513Students forget .226 .819 .267Students not involved in self-assessment .214 .794 8.790E-02Students/teachers no experience of other .611 .340 2 .167assessment meansFailure is inbuilt .636 .321 .153Students resent tests/exams .476 .215 .635Students study for the tests .260 .677 .407Exert a narrow effect on the curriculum .411 .598 2 .197Punish the weak students .716 .115 .138Super� cial learning .722 .354 2.776E-02Lead to passive learning .638 .484 2 1.656E-02

· Tests and examinations were demotivating and did not guarantee long-termlearning;

· Many teachers did not necessarily resent the amount and kind of testing, indeedmost saw tests and examinations as advantageous rather than as disadvantageous;

· The disadvantages of testing and examinations were recognised but given limitedimportance;

· Teachers did not feel their lack of knowledge of other forms of assessment to beparticularly problematic;

· Teachers and students relied on tests and examinations to ensure learning,particularly of book knowledge;

· The need to pass examinations and tests drove students’ learning and teachers’teaching;

· Tests and examinations were strong partners to didactic, textbook-driven meth-ods, drill, rote learning and memorisation, super� cial learning, student passivityand spoon-feeding;

· The data hold true, regardless of the nominal characteristics of the sample.

There is clear evidence here of a dependency culture emerging: teachers andstudents both rely on testing to drive curricula and learning.

Conclusion

Within the con� nes of the sampling and methodology reported, and with the riderthat, of course, the situation presented here does not apply to all schools in Macau,there are several factors which combine to create and sustain a regime of testing in


Macau which is not only attractive and inevitable to participants, but also dif� cultto break (c.f. Morrison, 2001), for example:

· the pressure from parents for a facts-based curriculum;· the pressure from schools for a facts-based, textbook-driven curriculum;· the control of teachers through principals’ control of contracts;· the possibility of gaining income by giving private lessons;· the limited teaching time available to cover large syllabuses;· the lack of perceived need for state-wide assessments because Macau is a small

state in which people believe that they already know which are the good and badschools;

· the need for teachers to control large classes by enforcing a culture of compliance;· the strong tradition of a facts-based curriculum in Macau;· the use of test scores for school graduation purposes and to enhance schools’

reputations;· the use of considerable amounts of teaching and learning time for testing;· the emphasis on the gaining and use of marks throughout the system;· limited initial and post-initial teacher education renders teachers inexpert in

devising, conducting and utilising alternative forms of assessment;· the importance of gaining university entrance;· the restricted number of post-16 places leads to compliance with a system whose

desirability the consumers have no power to question.

It is as if the education system, curricula, students and teachers depend on testingfor survival. The dependency model is strong: teachers depend on testing for contractrenewal, to ensure that students learn, for control of large classes, and to gainincome from private lessons; students depend on testing for graduation, reasons/motivation to learn, to de� ne what is worth learning, and to give meaning totheir experience in school; principals and senior teachers depend on testing tocontrol teachers, to meet parental wishes, to guarantee and indicate putativehigh standards, and to control syllabuses; curricula rely on testing for reinforcement,control, legitimacy and to meet the pressures of overfull syllabuses; pedagogyrelies on testing to reinforce traditionalist, didactic, rote and drill learning withan emphasis on memorisation rather than understanding (despite the cautionarynote reported earlier about Western misperceptions of Chinese students learningwithout understanding); schools rely on testing in order to attract studentsand promote their reputation; management of large classes relies on testing as acontrol mechanism. Indeed testing itself depends on the reinforcement from teach-ers, students, curricula, principals, senior teachers and parents in order to survive.The system is circular and hermetic, and, in the small state of Macau, leads to amarked homogeneity of practice. Reinforcing pedagogy, curricula, management,economics, and local culture is the leaden, deadening and non-humanitarian weightof testing.

For the system to be changed will require an immense effort on several fronts. Forexample, the SAR Government will need to combine pressure with support tochange practice in its own and in private schools (e.g. through the extension of


requirements for change that accompany its subsidies to private schools, throughincreased regulation, monitoring and quality assurance and quality development).Further it is imperative that a state-wide, external examination system is introduced,and that strenuous efforts are made to reduce the backwash effect of Universityentrance examinations. In turn this will require very considerable developmentwithin the Government’s own education services.

Within schools the cultures of command-and-control and compliance need to bebroken, be they by internal will or external pressure from the Government; to do thiswill require very considerable professional development of senior staff and teachersin schools, so that they have the expertise to operate in new management paradigms.Changes in teaching methodology will also be required in order to break thementality and practice of testing that exists in principals, teachers, students andparents; again that is a combination of external and internal pressure and develop-ment support for teachers. Given the strong hierarchical mentality in many ofMacau’s schools and management practices, change may need to be targetedstrongly at senior managers. New forms of assessment, coupled with the reductionof testing (and time presently taken on testing could be replaced with time spent ondiagnostic teaching), new forms of curricula and pedagogy need to be injected intoschooling in Macau.

To change the schools’ and the public’s perception of the need for, and thecontents of, changes in education is a considerable undertaking, which willrequire widespread dissemination, public relations, education and discussion. Tothe possible charge that ‘these won’t work in Macau’ could be used the examplesfrom Hong Kong (e.g. Education Commission, 2000), the PRC (e.g. Cortazzi &Jin, 2001; China Education News, 2001a; 2001b), and Singapore (e.g.http://www1.moe.edu.sg/projectwork/ and http://www1.moe.edu.sg/speeches/1998/Curry%20Revue%20 Report.htm), where such changes are beginning to take placein Chinese schooling. One cannot be too sanguine for hopes of rapid change inMacau unless the political will to change is strong and carries into practice. Theproblems are systemic and structural, hence the solutions will be at system andstructural levels.

NOTES

[1] Not all respondents answered each item, so numbers in Study 2 are sometimes less than113.

[2] Bray (1999, p. 43), in neighbouring Hong Kong cites evidence that 14% of students receiveprivate lessons to cover what they do not understand at school.

[3] For example: The City and Guilds of the London Institute, the General Certi� cate ofSecondary Education, the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, theInternational Baccalaureate, the School Examinations Committee, the University of Lon-don Examinations and Assessment Council, the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

[4] A median, rather than a modal, score might have been more accurate here, though the datawere not collected in such a way as to permit the calculation of a median.

[5] Respondents justi� ed this time spent in school as a way of avoiding cheating by studentswho copy others’ work out of school.


REFERENCES

BIGGS, J. B. (1996a) Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture, in: D. A.WATKINS & J. B. BIGGS (Eds) The Chinese Learner: cultural, psychological and contextualfactors, pp. 45–67 (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia, theAustralian Council for Educational Research Ltd).

BIGGS, J. B. (1996b) Learning, schooling and socialization: a Chinese solution to a Westernproblem, in: SING LAU (Ed.) Growing Up the Chinese Way: Chinese child and adolescentdevelopment (Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, The Chinese UniversityPress).

BIGGS, J. B. & WATKINS, D. A. (2001) Insights into teaching the Chinese learner, in: D. A.WATKINS & J. B. BIGGS (Eds) Teaching the Chinese Learner: psychological and pedagogicalperspectives (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia, the AustralianCouncil for Educational Research Ltd).

BLACK, P. J. (1998) Testing: friend or foe? (London, Falmer).BRAY, M. (1998) Lessons for conceptual understanding, in: M. BRAY & L. STEWARD (Eds)

Examination Systems in Small States: comparative perspectives on policies, models and operations(London, Commonwealth Secretariat).

BRAY, M. (1999) The Shadow Education System: private tutoring and its implications for planners(Paris, UNESCO).

BRAY, M. & HUI, P. (1989) The implications of size for educational development in smallterritories: the case of Macau, International Review of Education, 35, pp. 129–143.

BRAY, M. & HUI, P. (1991) Curriculum development in Macau, in: C. MARSH & P. MORRIS (Eds)Curriculum Developments in East Asia (London, Falmer).

BRAY, M. & STEWARD, L. (Eds) (1998) Examination Systems in Small States: comparativeperspectives on policies, models and operations (London, Commonwealth Secretariat).

BROADFOOT, P., MURPHY, R. & TORRANCE, H. (Eds) (1990) Changing Educational Assessment(London, Routledge).

CHINA EDUCATION NEWS (2001a) 3 (22), August 27 (Hong Kong, The University of Hong KongCentre of Research on Education in China).

CHINA EDUCATION NEWS (2001b) 3 (23), September 6 (Hong Kong, The University of HongKong Centre of Research on Education in China).

COHEN, L., MANION, L. & MORRISON, K. R. B. (1996) A Guide to Teaching Practice (4th edn)(London, Routledge).

CORTAZZI, M. & JIN, L. (2001) Large classes in China: ‘good’ teachers and interaction, in: D. A.WATKINS & J. B. BIGGS (Eds) The Chinese Learner: cultural, psychological and contextualin� uences (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia, the AustralianCouncil for Educational Research Ltd).

DAHLIN, B. & WATKINS, D. (2000) The role of repetition in the processes of memorising andunderstanding: a comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary schoolstudents in Hong Kong, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, pp. 65–84.

DIRECCAO DOS SERVICOS DE EDUCACAO E JUVENTUDE (1995) Pessoal Docente: escolas particulares semparalelismo pedagogico [Teachers’ Quali� cations in Private Schools] (Macau, Direccao dosServicos de Educacao e Juventude).

DIRECCAO DOS SERVICOS DE EDUCACAO E JUVENTUDE (2000) http://www.dsej.gov.mo/school/schoollistSummary c.asp

DIRECCAO DOS SERVICOS DE ESTATõ STICA E CENSUS (2000) Macau em Numeros. [Macau in Num-bers] (Macau, Direccao dos Servicos de Estatõ stica e Census).

DORE, R. P. & SAKO, M. (1989) How the Japanese Learn to Work (London, Routledge).ECKSTEIN, M. A. & NOAH, H. J. (1993) Secondary School Examinations: international perspectives on

policies and practices (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).EDUCATION COMMISSION (2000) Learning for Life, Learning through Life: reform proposals for the

education system in Hong Kong (Hong Kong, Government Printer).


GIPPS, C. (1994) Beyond Testing (London, Falmer).GOODMAN, R. (1992) Japan—pupil turned teacher?, in: D. PHILLIPS (Ed.) Lessons of Cross-

National Comparison in Education (Wallingford, Triangle Books).GRUBER, K. H. (1992) Unlearnt European lessons: why Austria abandoned the comprehensive

school experience and restored the Gymnasium, in: D. PHILLIPS (Ed.) Lessons of Cross-National Comparison in Education (Wallingford, Triangle Books).

HARNISCH, D. L. & MABRY, L. (1993) Issues in the development and evaluation of alternativeassessments, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25 (2), pp. 179–187.

HAYEK, F. A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).HAYEK, F. A. (1979) Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3: the political order of free people

(London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).HOLT, J. (1969) How Children Fail (Harmondsworth, Penguin).LEE, W. O. (1996) The cultural context for Chinese learners: conceptions of learning in the

Confucian tradition, in: D. WATKINS & J. BIGGS (Eds) The Chinese Learner: cultural,psychological and contextual in� uences (Hong Kong, Comparative Education ResearchCentre/Australia, the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd).

LEUNG, B. (2001) Church-state relations in Hong Kong and Macau: from colonial rule toChinese rule, Citizenship Studies, 5 (2), pp. 203–219.

LEWIN, K. & LU, W. (1990) University entrance examinations in China: a quiet revolution, in: P.BROADFOOT, R. MURPHY & H. TORRANCE (Eds) Changing Educational Assessment (London,Routledge).

MARTON, F., DALL’ALBA, G. & TSE, L. K. (1996) Memorizing and understanding: the keys to theparadox?, in: D. A. WATKINS & J. B. BIGGS (Eds) The Chinese Learner: cultural, psychologicaland contextual in� uences (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia,the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd).

MOK, I., CHIK, P. M., KO, P. Y., KWAN, T., LO, M. L., MARTON, F., NG, D. F. P., PANG, M. F.,RUNESSON, U. & SZETO, L. H. (2001) Solving the paradox of the Chinese learner, in: D. A.WATKINS & J. B. BIGGS (Eds) The Chinese Learner: cultural, psychological and contextualin� uences (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia, the AustralianCouncil for Educational Research Ltd).

MORRISON, K. R. B. (1994) Uniformity and diversity in assessment: an international perspectiveand agenda, Compare, 24 (1), pp. 5–15.

MORRISON, K. R. B. (2001) The Open Society and Education in Macau. Public lecture presentedat the Inter-University Institute of Macau, October.

REGIAO ADMINISTRATIVA ESPECIAL DE MACAU DA REPUBLICA POPULAR DA CHINA (2000) Relatoriodas Linhas de Accao Governativa Para O Ano Financeiro de 2001 [Policy Address for theFiscal Year 2001 of the Government of the Macau Special Administrative Region of thePeople’s Republic of China], 9. November (Macau, Regiao Administrativa Especial deMacau da Republica Popular da China).

ROSA, A. (1990) Education in Macau’s Transitional Period: present situation and perspectives.Paper presented at the Symposium on Reform of Education in Macau (Macau, Universityof Macau).

SACKS, P. (1999) Standardized Minds (Cambridge, MA, Perseus Books).TANG, F. H. & MORRISON, K. R. B. (1998) When marketization does not improve schooling: the

case of Macau, Compare, 28 (3), pp. 245–262.WATKINS, D. A. & BIGGS, J. B. (Eds) (1996) The Chinese Learner: cultural, psychological and

contextual in� uences (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia, theAustralian Council for Educational Research Ltd).

WATKINS, D. A. & BIGGS, J. B. (Eds) (2001) Teaching the Chinese Learner: psychological andpedagogical perspectives (Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australia, theAustralian Council for Educational Research Ltd).

Testing to Destruction: a problem in a small state

Documents

Transcript of Testing to Destruction: a problem in a small state