The Definition and Scope of Washback

16 the influence of students’ learning. Bailey 1996 uses the phrases “washback to the learners” to indicate the effects of test on students, and “washback to the programme” to indicate effects of the test on teachers, administrators, curriculum developers, counselors, etc. In short, the narrower definition washback focuses on the effect that a test has on teaching and learning. The broader definition looks beyond the classroom to the educational systems and society. Thus, tests can have “significant impact not only on individuals, but also on practices and polices –in the classroom, the school, the educational system, and in the society Wall, 2005. In this study, the researcher prefers to use the term washback to describe the narrower interpretation of washback to investigate the impact of NE on teaching and learning, and also by looking at some possible factors of macro level of washback that may involve. 1 Negative Washback Language tests are often to get many criticisms for their negative influence on teaching –so-called negative washback Alderson Wall, 1993. Shohamy 1992 notes that test will lead to the narrowing down of curriculum. Students tend to learn only to pass the test rather than total phases of understanding. Teachers tend to ignore the subjects and activities that are not directly related to passing the examination, and tests accordingly alter the curriculum negatively Vernon, 1956. Davies 1968, for instance, indicates that it is too often that washback effect has been bad: designed as testing devices, examinations have become teaching devices, work is directed toward what are in past examination papers and consequently 17 becomes narrow and uninspired. Shoahamy 1996 also points out that many teachers detail high anxiety, fear, and pressure to cover the material, as they feel that their job performan ce is assessed by the students’ test scores. Alderson and Wall 1993 refer to the negative washback as the negative or undesirable effect on teaching and learning of a particular test. Noble and Smith 1994a point out that high-stakes testing affects teachers directly and negatively, and that “teaching test-taking skills and drilling on multiple-choice worksheets is likely to boost the scores but unlikely to promote general understanding” 1994b. Smith 1991 concludes that testing programs substantially reduce the time available for instruction, narrow curricular offerings and modes of instruction, and teach content and to use methods and materials that are incompatible with standardized testing formats. 2 Positive Washback Some researcher believe that it is feasible and desirable to bring about beneficial change in language teaching by changing examinations, which refer to so-called positive washback. Positive washback refers to tests and examinations that influence teaching and learning beneficially Alderson Wall, 1993. In this sense, teachers and learners have a positive attitude towards the test and work willingly toward its objectives. Alderson and Wall 1993 further explains that teachers and learners will be motivated to fulfill their teaching and learning goals. Pearson 1988 argues that good test will be more or less directly usable as teaching- learning activities. In the same way, good teaching-learning tasks will be more or 18 less directly usable for testing purposes, even though practical or financial constrains limit the possibilities. Shohamy 1992, Alderson and Wall 1993, and Cheng 2005 maintain the view that decisional makers use the authority power of high-stakes testing to achieve the goals of teaching and learning, such as the introduction of the new textbooks and curricula. Heyneman 1987 concludes that testing is a profession, but it is highly susceptible to political interference. In the large extent, the quality of tests rely on the ability of a test agency to pursue the professional ends autonomously. If the consequences of the teaching and learning are to be evaluated, the educational context in which the test takes place need to be investigated. Thus, whether the washback is positive or negative will largely depend on how it works within which educational contexts it is situated Cheng, 2005.

d. The Function of Washback

Tests, traditionally, come at the end of the teaching and learning process for the purposes of evaluation Cheng Watanabe, 2004. However, with the widespread of high-stakes public examination systems, they further explain that the direction can possibly change. They also explain that, particularly, when tests are used as levers for change, new materials need to be designed to match the purposes of a new test, and school administrative and management staff, teachers, and students are generally required to learn in alternative ways, and often work harder, to achieve high scores on the test. In addition, many more changes in the teaching and learning context can occur as the result of the test, although the consequences 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