Use and Impact of PIRLS
Hong Kong has participated in largescale scholastic international assessments conducted in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Scholastic assessment in many schools and by government funded research initiatives generally have adhered to the reading skill framework established by PIRLS, which has investigated the current state of Chinese and English reading literacy at Grade 4 in Hong Kong, and the impact of approaches and strategies that schools are using to enhance the quality of the teaching and learning of reading. Hong Kong-inspired surveys have extended and modified the Hong Kong component of the PIRLS surveys specifically to examine in depth the Chinese and English reading proficiency of Grade 4 students as well as factors influencing attainment. Such follow-up to the 2004 Hong Kong study addressed the progress that Grade 4 students had made with respect to bilingual reading in English and Chinese. The evidence prompted cause for concern about teachers’ reading pedagogy and their use of resources and procedures to promote bilingual reading competence in an era witnessing a boom in children’s processing of written information on computerized devices and technology in and outside of school.55,56
Numerous educational reforms have been introduced since 1997, and the topic of children independently using the Chinese language as a tool for learning has become a major area of concern. Promoting a “reading culture” has become a key curriculum objective from kindergarten onward, with attention being directed to helping students “learn how to learn.” When an interim review of the education changes and reforms was formally announced during PIRLS 2006, many of the findings from PIRLS surveys were already being used to add support to the justification of further reforms in Hong Kong. Key items in the education reforms were noticeably being inspired by Hong Kong students’ distinctive progress in PIRLS research, especially changes to the official Chinese language curriculum. Many of the education reforms recommended by the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB, which became the Education Bureau), have deliberately been aligned with elements of the PIRLS undertaking. In fact, fundamental education reforms typically have quickly followed publication of PIRLS findings since the inaugural 2001 cycle.
As part of the initial responses to the PIRLS findings, the Permanent Secretary of the EMB set up a “Reading Task Force” led by the Deputy Secretary of the EMB in May 2002. The task force was organized to develop and implement a plan for promoting a reading culture in schools, aligned with initiatives in the Reading to Learn education reforms. In essence, the task force was a high level organization composed of representatives from all of the main bodies concerned with the teaching and learning of reading in Hong Kong.57 Directed by the Deputy Secretary of the EMB, it was made up of heads of department in the EMB and included key learning areas, school-based support, the library section, and principal regional educational officers. This high level task force possessed great authority and included representatives from numerous literacy-related bodies in Hong Kong.58,59
Officials provided school-based curriculum advice, school support programs, and expert consultants to schools. The government also provided extra financial resources to primary schools to set up class libraries and a central library in each primary school. The EMB funded primary schools to employ teacher-librarians to manage school libraries, and to oversee and guide students’ leisure and study reading activities. School libraries and teacher-librarians thus began to play a more significant and pivotal role in helping students and teachers gain access to the knowledge and information needed for the learning and teaching processes.60
PIRLS findings also have influenced the design and use of teaching materials in schools. For instance, the length of passages in textbooks gradually became longer as teachers saw that passages in the PIRLS tasks were longer than those in the comprehension books commonly used in Primary 4 lessons. Some schools began using texts from well‑known fiction for teaching the Chinese language, with the aim of boosting students’ motivation to read and to acquire regular reading habits.61
The PIRLS Hong Kong research team has provided training for school principals and staff and leading schools to gradually accept the notion of a school-based curriculum, rather than the “one size fits all” official curriculum for all students to follow, regardless of their linguistic prowess and interests. In the PIRLS 2001 Curriculum Questionnaire, one question asked was whether the school had school-based programs for teachers geared toward the improvement of reading instruction in the school. In PIRLS 2001, only 33.7 percent of the 142 participating schools said they had such a program. In PIRLS 2006, 61.8 percent of the 138 participating schools had such school-based reading programs, and in PIRLS 2011 almost all participating schools (98.5 percent) had their own school-based reading syllabus. Responses in the same PIRLS questionnaire indicated that the mean number of hours that teachers spent on reading instruction or reading activities per week had increased from 2.4 hours in 2001 to 5.1 hours in 2006, and decreased to 4.9 hours in 2011. A set of questions regarding teachers’ activities in PIRLS 2001 proved helpful for improving the impact of reading instruction.