Washback Defined in this Study
19 and the effects may be independent towards the test takers, due to the complex
interplay of forces and factors both within and beyond the school. Such influences are linked to test validity by Shohamy 1993a, who points
out that the need to include aspects of test use in construct validation originates in the fact that testing is not an isolated event; rather, it is a connected to a whole set
of variables that interact in the educational process. In the same way, Linn 1992 encourages the measurement research examination system should pay greater
attention to investigations of both the intended and unintended consequences of the system than was typical of previous test-based reform efforts.
The complexity motivates Messick 1989 to recommend a unified validity concept, in which he shows that when an assessment model is designed to make
inferences about a certain construct, the interferences drown from that model should not only derive from test score interpretation but also from other variables in the
social context Messick, 1992. Messick 1975 points out that researchers, other educators, and policy makers must work simultaneously to develop means of
evaluating educational effectiveness that accurately represent a school or district’s progress towards a broad range of important educational goals. Relating to this
context, Linn 1992 emphasizes the important to pay greater attention to investigations of both the intended and unintended consequences toward any high-
stakes examination system. Hughes as cited in Bailey, 1996 suggests a framework in order to clarify
thinking about backwash. He explains that the framework will be helpful to distinguish between participants, process, and product in teaching and learning, and
20 to recognize those three may be affected by the nature. In the framework,
participants include language learners and teachers, administrators, material developers, and publishers, all of whose perceptions and attitudes toward their work
may be affected by the test. The term process encompasses any actions taken by the participants that may contribute to process of learning. Hughes says that such
processes include materials development, syllabus design, changes in teaching methods or content, learning andor test-taking strategies, etc. Meanwhile, the last
term, product, refers to what it learned facts, skills, etc. and the quality of learning fluency, etc.. He continues to use tracheotomy to illustrate the mechanisms how
washback occurs in actual teaching and learning environments see Table 2.1. He explains his model as follows:
The tracheotomy … allows us to construct a basic model of backwash. The nature of a test may first affect the perceptions and attitudes of the participants towards
their teaching and learning tasks. These perceptions and attitudes in turn may affect what the participants do in carrying out their works process, including practicing
learning outcomes, the product of the work.
Table 2.1 The Tracheotomy of Backwash Model
a Participants–students, classroom teachers, administrators, materials
developers and publishers, whose perceptions and attitudes toward their work may be affected by test
b Processes–any action taken by the participates which may contribute to
the process of learning c
Product–what is learned facts, skills, etc. and the quality of the learning
as cited by Hughes in Bailey, 1996
The framework suggested by Hughes 1993 that consider the participants, processes, and products in examining washback lead Bailey 1996a, p. 264 to draft
the following model:
21
Bailey, 1996a, p.264
Figure 2.1 Basic Model of Washback
Alderson and Wall 1993, on the other hand, focus on micro aspects of teaching and learning that may be influenced by examinations in their Sri Lanka
study. They propose 15 hypothesis regarding washback 1993, p. 120 – 121, to
illustrate areas of teaching and learning affected by washback. The hypothesis are as follows:
1. A test will influence teaching.
2. A test will influence learning.
3. A test will influence what teachers teach; and
4. A teacher will influence how teachers teach
5. A test will influence what learners learn
PRODUCTS PROCESSES
PARTICIPANTS
TEST Students
Teachers
Material writers and
curriculum designers
Researchers Learning
Teaching
New materials
and new curricula
Research results
22
6. A test will influence how learners learn
7. A test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching; and
8. A test will influence the rate and sequence of learning
9. A test will influence the degree and depth of teaching
10. A test will influence the degree and depth of learning
11. A test will influence attitude towards the content, method, etc. of teaching
and learning 12.
Tests that have important consequences will have washback; conversely, 13.
Tests that do not have important consequences will have no washback 14.
Tests will have washback on all learners and teachers 15.
Tests will have washback effects for some learners and some teachers, but not for others.
Wall 1996, following the above study, stresses the difficulties in finding explanation of how tests maintain influence on teaching. Alderson and Wall 1993
concludes that further research on washback is needed, and the research must specify the above washback hypothesis more.