Physical Education in Higher Education in Hong Kong: The Effects of the Intervention on Pre-service Sports Coaches’ Attitudes Towards Assessment for Learning Used in Sports

  • Henry Kai On Lee
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 18)


This study examined the immediate and long-term effects of an Assessment for Learning intervention on pre-service sports coaches’ attitudes towards Assessment for Learning in sports. The hypothesis that the intervention had an immediate effect on the experimental group towards Assessment for Learning was only partially supported by this research. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that the intervention had a long-term effect was supported. This study has successfully shown that the intervention can be very effective in developing competencies in Assessment for Learning among pre-service sports coaches in Hong Kong. Through the intervention, the pre-service sport coaches made positive changes in attitudes towards Assessment for Learning, as used in sports teaching, and recognised its effect on student learning. Their positive responses serve as a “green light” for introducing Assessment for Learning for all in-service sports coaches and physical education teachers in Hong Kong.


Corrective Feedback Physical Education Teacher Specific Feedback Traditional Teaching Method Sport Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Available on the Assessment Reform Group website:
  3. Berry, R. (2005). Entwining feedback, self- and peer-assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 225–229.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, R. (2008). Assessment for learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, R. (2011). Assessment trends in Hong Kong: Seeking to establish formative assessment in an examination culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(2), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  12. Bryne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Carless, D. (2002). The ‘mini-viva’ as a tool to enhance assessment for learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education, 12(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casbon, C., & Spackman, L. (2005). Assessment for learning in physical education. Leeds: Coachwise Business Solutions.Google Scholar
  16. Chan, W. K., Sum, K. W., & Lau, K. O. (2006). Barriers to the implementation of physical education (PE) assessment in Hong Kong. The International Journal Learning, 13(4), 165–170.Google Scholar
  17. Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 40–43.Google Scholar
  18. Cheung, H. P. R. (2002). Factors influencing attitudes of Hong Kong secondary school students toward physical education. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  19. Choi, P. L., & Tang, S. Y. F. (2009). Teacher commitment trends: Cases of Hong Kong teachers from 1997 to 2007. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Comer, R., & Gould, E. (2011). Psychology around us. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Craig, C. J., & Deretchin, L. F. (2010). Cultivating curious and creative minds: The role of teachers and teacher educators. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  22. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn – The way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  24. Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Physical education key learning area, curriculum guide (Primary 1 - Secondary 3). Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  25. Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English language education key learning area: English language curriculum guide (Primary 1–6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  26. Curriculum Development Council. (2006). English language education key learning area: New senior secondary curriculum and assessment guide (secondary 4–6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  27. Damiani, V. B. (2011). Crisis prevention and intervention in the classroom: What teachers should know (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: School-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
  29. Downey, C. J., et al. (2009). 50 ways to close the achievement gap (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  30. Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Echevarría, J., & Vogt, M. E. (2011). Response to intervention (RTI) and English learners: Making it happen. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  32. Evers, R. B., & Spencer, S. S. (2011). Planning effective instruction for students with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2008). Assessment for learning and teaching in secondary schools. Exeter: Learning Matters.Google Scholar
  34. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.Google Scholar
  35. Fu, F. H. (1988). School physical education in Hong Kong. Physical Education Review, 11(2), 147–152.Google Scholar
  36. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2010). Applying educational research: How to read, do, and use research to solve problems of practice (6th ed.). Boston/Hong Kong: Pearson.Google Scholar
  37. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston/Hong Kong: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  38. Gilson, R. (2009). Professional development in assessment for learning. United States: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  39. Goodwin, C. J. (2010). Research in psychology: Methods and design (6th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (6th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Hardman, A., & Jones, C. (2011). The ethics of sports coaching. Milton Park/Abingdon/Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Hartas, D. (2010). Educational research and inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Hattie, J., & Temperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henkin, A. B., & Holliman, S. L. (2009). Urban teacher commitment: Exploring associations with organizational conflict, support for innovation, and participation. Urban Education, 44(2), 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., & Kivlighan, D. M. (2008). Research design in counseling (3rd ed.). Belmont, Calif: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  46. Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning: Strategies for the classroom. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hinett, K., & Thomas, J. (1999). Staff guide to self and peer assessment. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  48. Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2007). Longitudinal study on the implementation of the school-based assessment component of the 2007 HKCE English Language Examination. (Final Report). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  49. Hong Kong Sports Development Board. (1999). Local educational courses in sport & physical education. Hong Kong: The Board.Google Scholar
  50. Hoodin, R. B. (2011). Intervention in child language disorders: A comprehensive handbook. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From practice to theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Kidman, L., & Hanrahan, S. (2011). The coaching process: A practical guide to becoming an effective sports coach (3rd ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12, 180–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li, C. (2004). From students to teachers – A longitudinal study of occupational socialization of pre-service physical education teachers in Hong Kong. England: University of London.Google Scholar
  57. Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85–106.Google Scholar
  58. Linacre, J. M. (2010). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Scholar
  59. Lissitz, R. W. (2009). The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Liu, Y. K. R. (1998). The implementation of a cognitive teaching approach to games in Hong Kong. England: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  61. Miller, M. P., & Nendel, J. D. (2011). Service-learning in physical education and related professions: A global perspective. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Mok, M. C. M. (2010). Self-directed learning oriented assessment: Assessment that informs learning & empowers the learner. Hong Kong: PACE.Google Scholar
  63. Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Norrie, M. (2011). Humanitarian intervention and the United Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nygaard, C., Holtham, C., & Courtney, N. (2009). Improving students’ learning outcomes. Koge: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  66. Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Boston/Hong Kong: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  67. Pang, N. S. K., & Leung, Z. L. M. (2010). Teachers’ competence in assessment for learning in early childhood and primary education. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  68. Reid, G., & Green, S. (2009). Effective learning. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  69. Richard, G. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Richards, C., & Leafstedt, J. M. (2010). Early reading intervention: Strategies and methods for struggling readers. Boston/Hong Kong: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  71. Robinson, P. E. (2010). Foundations of sports coaching. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Russell, E. D. (2002). The California School of Professional Psychology handbook of multicultural education, research, intervention, and training (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  73. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sah, B. (2008). Effect of intervention on the development of preschool children: An experimental study. New Delhi: Dominant Publishers and Distributors.Google Scholar
  75. Savage, J. (2011). Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. School-based Assessment Consultancy Team. (2007). Professional development for the school-based assessment component of the 2007 HKCE English Language Examination [DVD]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority and The Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  77. Sonnet, H. (2010). Positive intervention for pupils who struggle at school: Creating a modified primary curriculum. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Stephen, J. R. G. (1992). Was there a hawthorne effect? American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  80. Tan, O. S., et al. (2011). Educational psychology: A practitioner-researcher approach (2nd ed.). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.Google Scholar
  81. Troman, G., & Raggal, A. (2008). Primary teacher commitment and the attractions of teaching. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 16(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tuckman, B. W., & Monetti, D. M. (2011). Educational psychology (1st ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  83. Whitfield, A. H. (2000). Student teacher self-assessment: A proposed method of professional development. New Orleans: UMI Dissertation Services.Google Scholar
  84. Wiliam, D. (2000). Formative assessment in mathematics part 3: The learner’s role. Equals: Mathematics and Special Educational Needs, 6(1), 19–22.Google Scholar
  85. Wiliam, D. (2001). An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In D. Scoot (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment (pp. 165–181). Westport: Alex.Google Scholar
  86. Wiliam, D. (2007a). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  87. Wiliam, D. (2007b). Content then process: Teacher learning communities in the service of formative assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 182–204). Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  88. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  90. Wilkinson, L. A. (2010). A best practice guide to assessment and intervention for autism and Asperger syndrome in schools. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  91. Wolfe, E. W., & Chiu, C. W. T. (1999). Measuring change across multiple occasions using the Rasch rating scale model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(4), 360–381.Google Scholar
  92. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analyses. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and SciencesThe Hong Kong Institute of EducationTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations