Education and Colonial Transition: The Hong Kong experience in comparative perspective

While in some respects the nature of Hong Kong's colonial transition seems unique, several parallels exist with transitions elsewhere. This paper begins by identifying major differences and similarities in the macro-framework. It then turns specifically to the education sector, noting that the parallel operation of multiple education systems within the boundaries of a single country is quite common and, therefore, that models already exist for continued plurality of the type that might be envisaged for Hong Kong and the rest of China. Examining changes at various points in time, the paper observes that some reforms were made in Hong Kong's educational provision well ahead of the commencement of colonial transition and far in advance of parallel points in the history in other colonies. The paper then turns to specific changes which occurred during the period 1984-1997 and to commentary on the further changes that may be expected in the continuing period of transition that commenced in 1997. Analysis of the currents and counter-currents makes Hong Kong an important case to study, both in its own right and as a case to compare and contrast with patterns elsewhere.     

THE CORRECTION FOR GUESSING: A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF ANGOFF AND SCHRADER

This study reexamines results reported by Angoff and Schrader (1981, 1984) regarding formula directions and rights directions for standardized tests. In that study, it was concluded that the two scoring directions were essentially equivalent. In this study, methodological concerns are discussed and additional data analyses undertaken. Among the methodological concerns discussed are the potential problems in using volunteers for the College Board phase of the study and the likelihood of treatment contamination in the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) phase. Estimates of success rates of the rights directions group on items omitted and not reached by the formula group, were beyond chance levels by 0.6 % to 13.0 % for the College Board tests and at or below chance levels for the GMAT. Alternative interpretations of the data and suggestions for additional research are proposed.