Washback from the Bottom-Up: A Grounded Theory

Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi

Abstract


Theory-driven wash back studies inculcate the view that tests are the only causal factor determining what teachers and students do and as such ignore other local constraints. This data-driven study aims at filling in the gap in the wash back knowledge-base by conceptualizing teachers’ perceptions of the university entrance exam (UEE) in Iran. In line with grounded theory, theoretically relevant concepts were sampled from qualitative interviews with experienced language teachers who were willing to share their views with the researcher. Iterative data collection and analysis revealed: (1) a set of local conditions that that make teachers shift away from language teaching towards preparing students for the UEE; (2) how the UEE deprives the nation from professional workforce by deprofessionalizing language teachers and producing a hose of communicatively incompetent high school graduates; and (3) data-driven suggestions for reform.


Keywords


Wash back, grounded theory, deprofessionalization, local conditions, communicatively-incompetent

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adams, B. (1992). Wash back - an investigation of the influence of the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) test on teaching as perceived by teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Bachman, L. and A. Palmer. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, K. (1999). Wash back in language testing. New Jersey, Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Chapman D. W., & Snyder, C. W. Jr. (2000). Can high stakes national testing improve instruction? Reexamining conventional wisdom. InternationalJournal of Educational Development, 20(6), 457-474.

Cheng, L. (1997). How does wash back influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education 11 (1), 34-54.

Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: wash back on teacher perceptions and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 253-271.

Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A wash back study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y. &Curtis, A.(Eds.). (2004). Wash back in language testing: Research contexts and methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davies, A. (1985). Follow my leader: Is that what language tests do? In Y. P. Lee, A.C.Y.Y. Fok, R. Lord, &G. Ow, (Eds),New directions in language testing (pp.1-13). Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Farhady, H., & Hedayati, H. (2009). Language assessment policy in Iran. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 132–141.

Frederiksen, J.K. & Collins, A. (1989). A system approach to educational testing. Educational Researchers, 18 (6), 27-32.

Ghorbani, M. R. (2008). The washback effect of the university entrance examination on Iranian English teachers‟ curricular planning and instruction. The Iranian EFL Journal, (2), 60-87.

Read, J. & Hayes, B. (2004). IELTS test preparation in New Zealand: Preparing students for the IELTS Academic Module. In L. Cheng and Y. J. Watanabe, with A. Curtis (eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp 97-111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Wash back, impact and validity: Ethical concerns. Language Testing, 14(3), 295-303.

Khaniya, T.R. (1990b). Examinations as instrument for Educational change: Investigating the wash back effect of the Nepalese English exams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Madsen, H. (1976). New alternatives in EFL exams or how to avoid selling English short. English Language Teaching Journal, 30 (2), 135-144.

McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38,1–30.

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and wash back in language testing. Language Testing, 13(4), 241–56.

Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2011). A comparative study of test tasks and target use tasks. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 525-529.

Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2010). A data-driven conceptualization of teacher evaluation. The Qualitative Report, 15(6), 1504-1522.

Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers for change. In M. Chamberlain, Large-scale communicative language testing: a case study (pp. 35-46). Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Prodromou, L. (1995). The Backwash Effect: From Testing to Teaching. Language Testing 1995, 49 (1): 13-25.

Qi, L. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test.Language Testing, 22, 142-173.

Shohamy, E. (1992). Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing model for assessing foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal. 76, 513-532.

Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S.& Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Wash back effect over time. Language Testing. 13 (3), 298-317.

Smith, M.L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researchers, 2(5), 8-11.

Spratt, M. (2005). Wash back and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of wash back from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9, 5-29.

Vernon, P. E. (1956). The Measurement of Abilities (2nd ed.). London: University of London Press.

Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System 28, 499–509.

Watanabe, Y. (2004). Methodology in wash back studies. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe & A. Curtis (Eds.), Wash back in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 19-36). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wesdorp, H. (1982) Backwash effects of language-testing in primary and secondary education. Journal of Applied Language Study 1 (1), 40–50.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.6p.212

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.