Language Teaching and Testing Relationship in the EFL

Contexts
Hadi Salehi 1, Melor Md Yunus 2, Sara Kashefian Naeeini 2 , Hoda Sadat Mousavi 3
1
Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Iran
2
Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
3
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Abstract: Teaching and testing are so closely interrelated that it is virtually impossible to
work in either field without being constantly concerned with the other. The reciprocity of
the relationship between the fields of testing and teaching has made headway in both
fields. There is a generally accepted belief that tests, especially high-stakes ones,
influence test takers, teachers, students, parents, curriculum and the society in general.
This effect is known as washback and it can be harmful or beneficial. This study is just one
part of a larger research project designed to address the existing relationship between
teaching and testing in the EFL contexts. The effects of English language high-stakes
tests are not confined to the effects of such tests on language learning and teaching.
Besides teaching and learning, they definitely affect the teaching methodology, teaching
materials, assessment methods and stakeholders’ perceptions. In this paper, the
phenomenon of washback is defined in relation to the teachers, learners, and other
stakeholders.

Key words: Teaching, Testing, High-Stakes Test, Washback, EFL Context

1. LANGUAGE TESTING

Testing in general and language testing in particular is a challenging field. Testing is a universal
feature of social life and throughout history people have been put to the test to prove their
capabilities or to establish their credentials (McNamara, 2000). On the one hand, tests are used
to make basic decisions which influence people’s lives. Therefore, tests must provide as
accurate information as possible to enable testers to make fair decisions. This makes testing a
very delicate responsibility. On the other hand, testing is rooted in many complicated scientific
disciplines such as, linguistics, psychology, and sociology, each of which has its own intricate
and unresolved issues. This also makes testing a very complex responsibility. The delicacy of
decision-making and the intricacy of different related fields have made testing a challenging
field.

According to Bachman and Palmer (1996), the most important consideration in designing and
developing a language test is the use for which it is intended, so that the most important quality
of a test is its usefulness. They believe that test usefulness provides a kind of merit by which
they can evaluate not only the tests that they develop and use, but also all aspects of test
developments and use. They propose a model of test usefulness that consists of six test
qualities including reliability, construct validity, authenticity, interactiveness, impact, and
practicality. In considering the specific qualities that determine the overall usefulness of a given
test, Bachman and Palmer (1996) believe it is essential to take a systemic view, considering
tests as part of a larger societal or educational context. They stated that the main difference
between tests and other components of an instructional program is in their purpose. While the
primary purpose of other components is to promote learning, the primary purpose of tests is to
measure. Tests can serve pedagogical purposes but this is not their primary function.

The development in different language related fields have contributed to the rapid growth in the
field of testing in the past few decades. The ebbs and flows of the language learning and
teaching theories, in response to the emergence of new ideas in the fields of psychology,
linguistics and sociolinguistics, has necessitated the development of tests based on the
principles of these new trends. In fact, separation of testing from teaching and learning is
impossible; and as Heaton (1988, p. 5) puts it, ―both testing and teaching are so closely
interrelated that it is virtually impossible to work in either field without being constantly
concerned with the other‖. Therefore, the reciprocity of the relationship between the fields of
testing and teaching has made headway in both fields. That is, as Bachman (1990) notes:

language testing both serves and is served by the research in language acquisition and
language teaching. For example, language tests are frequently used as criterion
measures of language abilities in L2 acquisition research. Similarly, language tests can
be valuable sources of information about the effectiveness of learning and teaching (p.
2).

In other words, by using tests, teachers receive feedback on the students’ weaknesses and
strengths, and their progress and achievement in the course. The results of the tests also
provide the teachers with the feedback as to the effectiveness of the approaches they have
adopted in their teaching. That is why Brown (1987, p. 218) argues, ―Your theory of second
language acquisition can be put to practice everyday in the classroom, but you will never know
how valid your theory is unless you systematically measure the success of your learners – the
success of your theory – in practice‖.

Davies (1990), also points out that language testing is central to language teaching. He
emphasizes the contribution of language testing to applied linguistics and discusses the extent
to which applied linguistics has influenced new developments in language testing. According to
Davies, the three central language-learning issues that are of importance in applied linguistics
are communicative language testing, testing language for specific purposes, and the unitary
competence hypothesis. What is remarkable here is that the investigative role being undertaken
on behalf of applied linguistics into these three current central issues of language is that of
language testing.

The last but not the least important point to be mentioned in this part is the role of theory and
practice in language testing and its relationship with language teaching. During the past two
decades there has been a shift of emphasis within the field of language testing from practical
concerns to theoretical issues (Davies, 1990). In fact, it has lost some of its practical force in
favor of the development of theoretical modeling. But, in reality, this movement, as Davies
(1990, p. 73) puts it, ―has not taken the applied linguistics and language testing away, except at
a very surface level, from language teaching‖. The fact is that, according to Alderson and
Hughes (1981), language testing has a great deal to say of relevance to language teaching and

2
indeed to communicative language testing but usually in terms of fundamental issues rather
than communicative language tests for classroom use. In other words, the relevance is indirect
– that is, research and theory do not seem to be of direct relevance to language teachers
(Davies, 1990). Bachman (1990) makes the nature of this relevance clearer when he contends:

Advances in language testing do not take place in a vacuum; they are stimulated by
advances in our understanding of the processes of language acquisition and language
teaching. And developments in language testing can provide both practical tools
theoretical insights for further research and development in language acquisition and
language teaching (p. 3).

2. TEST WASHBACK

According to McNamara (2000), the power of tests in determining the life chances of individuals
and in influencing the reputation of teachers and schools means that they can have a strong
influence on the curriculum. The term washback refers to the effect of testing on teaching and
learning (Alderson and Wall, 1993). Washback can be harmful or beneficial. If a test is regarded
as important, then preparation for it can come to dominate all teaching and learning activities,
and if the test content and testing techniques are at variance with the objectives of the course,
then there is likely to be harmful washback. However, washback can be positively beneficial.
For example, if the test is to be administered at the end of an intensive year of English study
and will be used to determine which students will be allowed to go on to their undergraduate
courses and which will have to leave the university.

Davies (1968) believes that the good test is an obedient servant since it follows and apes the
teaching. The proper relationship between teaching and testing is surely that of partnership. It is
true that there may be occasions when the teaching is good and appropriate and the testing is
not; we are then likely to suffer from harmful washback. But equally there may be occasions
when teaching is poor or inappropriate and when testing is able to exert a beneficial influence.
We cannot expect testing only to follow teaching. What we should demand of it, however, is that
is should be supportive of good teaching and, where necessary, exerts a corrective influence on
bad teaching. If testing always had a beneficial washback on teaching, it would have a much
better reputation amongst teachers.

Assessment authorities sometimes use assessment reform to drive curriculum reform, believing
that the assessment can be designed to have positive washback on the curriculum. However,
research has shown that washback phenomenon is often unpredictable. Whether or not, the
desired effect is achieved may depend on the local conditions in the classrooms, the
established traditions of teaching, the immediate motivation of learners, and the frequently
unpredictable ways in which classroom interactions develop (McNamara. 2000).

3. TEST IMPACT

Language tests can exert powerful effects beyond the classroom. The wider effect of tests on
the community as a whole is sometimes referred to as test impact. Bachman and Palmer (1996)
believe that washback is a more complex phenomenon than simply the influence of a test on
teaching and learning. They note that the impact of a test should be evaluated based on the
variables of society’s goals and values, the educational system in which the test is used, and
the potential outcomes of its use. Moreover, they suggest test impact should be viewed in terms
of both its micro effects in a classroom as well as its macro effects on educational systems and
societies. They stated that just as micro and macro economics have synergistic patterns, a

3
synergism often exists between micro and macro test impact. In many cases, tests both
influence and are influenced by the social climates in which they are used.

4. HUGHES WASHBACK FRAMEWORK

Hughes (1993) suggested a washback framework based on the participants, process and
product. In the Hughes framework, participants refer to those whose perceptions and attitudes
toward their work may be affected by a test. They include language learners and teachers,
administrators, materials developers, and publishers. The term process covers any actions
taken by the participants which may contribute to the process of learning. Such processes
include materials development, syllabus design, changes in teaching methods or content,
learning and/or test-taking strategies. Finally, in Hughes framework, product refers to what is
learned and the quality of learning.

4.1 Participants and Washback

According to Hughes (1993), washback is not confined to the effects of a test on language
learning and teaching. A test definitely influences the participants, process and product.
Moreover, a test affects the content of teaching, teaching methodology, ways of assessing
achievement, and direction (Bachman and Palmer, 1996). In the following sections, the test
washback effects on different participants are reviewed.

4.1.1 Learners and Washback

Learners are considered as the key participants whose lives are most directly affected by the
tests. As Bachman and Palmer (1996) suggest, learners can be influenced by three aspects of
testing procedure 1) the experience of taking and of preparing for the test, 2) the feedback they
receive about their performance on the test, and 3) the decisions that may be made about them
on the basis of their test scores (p. 31). Moreover, they believe that learners should be involved
in all phases of test development. They claim that one way to promote the potential for positive
impact is through involving learners in the design and development of the test, as well as
collecting information from them about their perceptions of the test and test tasks.

Learners may have to spend a reasonable amount of time to prepare and practice for a test.
Bailey (1999) claims that students faced with an important test might participate in processes
like practicing items similar to the ones in the test, studying grammar and vocabulary, reading
and listening in the target language, applying test strategies, enrolling test preparation courses
and requesting feedback on their performance. All or some of these might be applied by the
learners depending on the characteristics of the test. For instance, if they are going to sit for the
universities entrance exam in Iran, they will not focus on the speaking skill as it is not tested in
the test.

As Bailey claims, in some societies learner washback has important financial implications for the
students and their families, in terms of their access to educational opportunities. He mentions
Wall and Alderson’s (1993) Sri Lankan example in which students have to copy practice
exercises from the chalkboard since it is costly to make machinery copies and adds that it is
quite time consuming. This case is similar to the one in Iran. Students have to attend expensive
private classes and prepare themselves for taking the universities entrance exam. They have to
spend all their evenings, weekends, and vacations to study for the exam if they intend to pursue
their education in the tertiary level.

4
Even five of Alderson and Wall’s (1993) restatements of the washback hypothesis directly
address the learner washback. They believe that a test will influence learning, will influence
what and how learners learn, the rate and sequence of learning, and will influence the degree
and depth of learning.

4.1.2 Teachers and Washback

Teachers are the second group that are directly affected by high-stakes tests because tests will
influence teaching, will influence what and how teachers teach, the rate and success of
teaching, degree and depth of teaching and will influence attitudes to content and method of
teaching and learning (Alderson and Wall 1993, cited in Bailey 1999). Bachman and Palmer
(1996) claim that teachers may find teaching to the test almost unavoidable although they may
personally prefer to teach certain material in a specific way. They add that the term ―teaching to
test’ implies doing something in teaching which may not be compatible with teachers’ own
beliefs, values and goals.

Several studies have been conducted on the effect of tests on educational systems and
language teaching methods (Mizutani, 2009; Luxia, 2005; Cheng, 1998; Hughes 1988; Lam,
1994,). It is a generally accepted fact that the teachers direct their teaching methods towards
the exam that their students are going to take. Cheng (1998) gives an example of a change in
Hong Kong Certificate of Education examination and reports that teachers gave up practicing
reading aloud type of activities after the test excluded this part and instead they started role-play
tasks and group discussions which took place of reading aloud. However, this is not the case all
the time. A change in the test does not always guarantee a beneficial change in the language
curriculum. Luxia (2005) reports about a change in National Matriculation English Test in China
which had two major purposes: selecting students and affecting teaching and learning favorably.
It has been found out that these two purposes were conflicting with each other so rather than
changing the curriculum towards a communicative one, they ended up with the same kind of
memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary.

4.1.3 Other Participants and Washback

Learners and teachers are not the only participants that are influenced by the high-stakes tests.
The other participants including the parents, policy makers, teacher educators and curriculum
planners, educational specialists, institutions, materials developers and publishers are all
affected. The research on other parties who are influenced by program washback (see Hughes,
1993; Shohamy, Donitsa-Schmidt, & Ferman, 1996; Cheng, 1998; Watanabe, 2004; and Salehi
et al., 2009) is less widely developed than the research on language learners and teachers. A
common theme available in the literature on other related participants is the dynamic tension
between the intended positive washback in implementing new or revised exams and how that
impact is realized in classroom practices.

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper the term washback is tried to be defined and described in detail. Washback has
various definitions as many as those who have written about it. Some take it as the effect of a
test on learning and teaching and some take a broader sense and claim that it is the effect of
the test on numerous participants like test takers, teachers, policy makers, test designers,
parents and society. It can be concluded that language testing washback has often been
discussed and is widely held to exist; however, until recently very little empirical research has

5
investigated the phenomenon in detail. It can also be pointed out that positive washback is
regarded as an important criterion in the development and evaluation of language tests.

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C., & Hughes, A. (1981). Issues in Language Testing (eds.). ELT Document 111.
London: The British Council.

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-129.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University

Press. Oxford.

Bachman, L.F. & Palmer A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press.
Oxford.

Bailey, K.M (1999). Washback in Language Testing . TOEFL Monograph Series. Retrieved
March 31, 2006 from the website. http://ftp.ets.org/pub/toefl/Toefl-MS-15.pdf

Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of Learning and Teaching. Second edition. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Cheng, L. (1998). Impact of a public English examination change on students’ perceptions and
attitudes toward their English learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 279-301.

Davies, A. (Ed.). (1968). Language testing symposium: A psycholinguistic approach. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Davies, A. (1990). Principles of language testing. Oxford: Blackwell.

Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English language tests. New York: Longman Inc.

Hughes, A. (1988). Introducing a needs-based test of English language proficiency into an

English-medium university in Turkey. In A. Hughes (Ed.), Testing English for university study.

ELT Documents #127 (pp. 134-146) Modern English Publications in association with the British
Council.

Huges, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished Manuscript, University of

Reading.

Lam, H. P. (1994). Methodology washback—an insider's view. In D. Nunan, R. Berry, & V. Berry
(Eds.), Bringing about change in language education: Proceedings of the International
Language in Education Conference 1994 (pp. 83-102). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Luxia, Q. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-
stakes test. Language Testing. (22/2) (142-173).

6
Mizutani, S. (2009). The mechanism of washback on teaching and learning. Unpublished PhD,
The University of Auckland, Auckland.

Salehi, H., Mustapha, R., Yunus, M.M., & Kashefian-Naeeini, S. (2010). The washback effect of
the Iranian high school nationwide exams on the English teachers’ methodology. 23rd
International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.

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

Watanabe, Y. (2004). Teacher factors mediating washback. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A.

Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 129-146).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wall, D., & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study.
Language Testing, 10(1), 41-69.