Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

Examination Washback Over Learning And Teaching

Matiullah Jaan 1
Institute of Education and Research, University of Peshawar, Pakistan
*Email: [email protected]
Ikram Saeed Khan 2
Institute of Education and Research, University of Peshawar, Pakistan
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Tests are the primary source of change in the centralized educational systems. Washback is the term used to
express the effects of examination or testing on the process of teaching and learning. Till now, much has been
said about the pedagogical influences of tests. However, the washback phenomenon is complex in its kind and
the researchers have reported a gap between the hypothetical impact of washback and the empirical evidences
collected from the ongoing research in this field. This was a review study with the focus to explore the
pedagogical implications of washback on the stakeholders. For this purpose, different definitions of the term
washback and the like terminologies were elaborated. Secondly it drew on the empirical research taken in this
direction. In the end, it suggested to the English language teachers some remedies to avoid negative influences of
testing in the light of empirical findings from theprevious research.
Key Words
Examination, washback effect, teaching and learning
1. Introduction
Testing is crucial to see the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Consequently, the teachers, students, testers,
curriculum designers, policy makers, institutions and administration, all are affected by testing. In other words,
society as a whole is influenced by testing in someway. High stakes test results are used as an engine to introduce
desirable changes in teaching and learning around the world. Davies (1990:24) asserted that, Testing is always
used in teaching, in the sense that much teaching is related to the testing which is demanded of the students.
Hence, tests become an integral part of teaching and learning. Focusing on the importance of testing, Cheng, L.
(1997) wrote that, Traditionally, tests come at the end of teaching and learning process. However, with the
advent of high stakes public examinations testing nowadays, the direction seems to be reversed. Testing usually
comes before the teaching and learning processes. Madaus (1988:84, as cited by Spratt, 2005:05) asserted that,
It is testing not the official stated curriculum that is increasingly determining whatis taught, how is taught, what
is learnt, and how it is learnt. The teachers and students have been reported to change their teaching and
learning strategies according to the demands of tests. Buck (1988:17 as quoted in Bailey,1996:257) wrote that,
There is a natural tendency for both teachers and students to tailor their classroom activities to the demands of
the test, especially when the test is very important to the future of the students, the pass rates are used as a
measure of teacher success. This influence of the test on the classroom is, of course, very important, which is
termed as washback. Though it looks like a paradox, yet its significance in shaping the lives of the people cannot
be neglected. This study attempts to give a brief review of literatureavailable on washback effect. For a clear
understanding of the related issues, it will focus on the following research objectives:
i. To analyze various definitions on washback effect and the like terminology given by different scholars.
ii. To analyze the hypothetical influences of the washback effect on teaching and learning iii. To explore the
implications of washback effect and give suggestions to the English language teachers on how to foster positive
washback effect.
2. Definitions of the Term washback
2.1 The Term washback
Although most of the educationists and scholars areagreed on the basic definition that washback is the
influence of test on the classroom practices which can be either beneficial or harmful, yet there is found a variety
of definitions indicating slight differences in meaning. Hughes (1989:01) wrote that the effect of testing on
teaching and learning is washback. Spolsky (1994:02, as mentioned in Pan, Y 2009:257) asserted that washback
deals with the side effects of examinations. Biggs (1995:03) stated that washback controls teaching methods and
the students learning strategy besides curriculum. Messick (1996) also affirmed the verdict given earlier by
Alderson and Wall (1993) that tests influence teachers and learners to do things which they would not otherwise
necessarily do. He adds further (as quoted by Bailey, 1996:259) that, the evidence of teaching and learning
effect should be interpreted as washbackonly if that evidence can be linked to the introduction and use of the
test. These definitions clearly indicate that washback denotes influence that a test or exam can exerton teaching,

62

Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

learning and all stake holders involved in this process. Bailey (1996: 259, as cited in Spratt, 2005)wrote that
washback is known as the influence of testing on teaching and learning. Pearson (1988:07) asserted that, Public
examinations influence the attitudes, behaviors and motivation of teachers, learners and parents, and because
examinations often come at the end of acourse, this influence is seen working in a backward direction, hence the
term washback (as quoted by Pan, Y. 2009). Cheng (2008:08) claimed that washback is an intended or intended
direction and function of curriculum change on aspects of teaching and learning by means of a change in public
examinations. This definition covers more aspect than merely teaching and learning as advocated by most of the
researchers. It focuses on the change of curriculum in the wake of teaching and learning styles.
2.2 The Other Similar Concepts
A review of the related literature reveals that there are found other similar concepts to explain thisphenomenon.
The term washback (as used by Buck 1988, Wall and Alderson 1993, Messick 1996, Bailey 1996, Pearson 1988,
Cheng 2005) has been referred to as backwashby Hughes 1989, Spolsky 1994, and Biggs 1995. Some scholars
termed it as test impact, like Bachman and Palmer 1996, Wall 1997, McNamara2000 and, Andrews 2004. Wall
(1997:11, as cited in Pan, 2009) wrote that , Test impact can refer to any of the effects that a test may have on
individuals, policies or practices within the classroom, the school, the educational system orsociety as a whole.
Similarly, McNamara (2004:10) also assertedon the significance of test impact beyond the classroom settings.
Systemic Validityis the term used by Frederickson and Colling, 1989. They used to examine systemic validity
influencing education system and curricular changes in fostering cognitive skill which a testintends to measure.
Messick, 1989 termed the same phenomenon as the Consequential Validitywhich encompasses concepts
ranging from the uses of tests, the impactof testing on test takers and teachers, the examination of results by
decision makers, and the potential misuse, abuse and unintended usage of tests (Pan, Y. 2009). Marrow (1986)
referred to this phenomenon as the washback validity. He asserted that, In essence, an examination of
washback validity would take testing researchers into the classroom in order to observe the effect of test in
action. The study shows that the same phenomenon has been explained using different terminology. The
difference is that of the impact of washback on micro and macro levels. At micro level, the influences of test can
be seen within the classroom; to the extent a test influences teaching methodology by the teacher and
learningstrategy by the learners. At macro level, the influence of test can be gauged from the point of view of
program, curriculum, institutions, administration, test developers, counselors and parents. In a nut shell,
washback effect refers to the influences of a test has on all individual stake holders, like students and teachers
and, society as a whole. All of the above mentioned definitions focusclassroom settings involving teacher, learner,
attitudes, learning, curriculum, teaching methodology and materials. These definitions tell little about whether
washback effect is positive or negative.
3. The Hypothetical Influence of Washback
Alderson and Walls (1993) hypothesis on washback effect, indeed, laid the foundation for the currently ongoing
discussion in this field. To specify the phenomenon, they posed 15 possible hypothesis:
1) A test will influence teaching.
2) A test will influence learning.
3) A test will influence what teachers teach; and
4) A test will influence how teachers teach; and therefore by extension from (2) above:
5) A test will influence what learners learn; and
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; and
10) A test will influence the degree and depth of learning.
11) A test will influence attitudes to the content,method, etc., of teaching and learning.
12) Tests that have important consequences will have washback; and 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.
A number of empirical studies on washback effect verify theses hypotheses fully or partially. Aldersonand Wall
(1993) have insisted on the necessity of more research on washback effect. According to them, an ethnographic
investigation with, at the least, classroom observation should be incorporated with other methodologies
employed for research and, the areas of motivation and performance should be explored with others. Hughes
(1993 ) framework (Appendix 1) on washback is, however, somewhat different from the above mentioned 15
hypothesis on washback. He asserted on the changes washback effect can bring on the participants, process and
63

Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

productsof teaching and learning. He said that: The tracheotomy into participants, process and product allows us
to construct a basic model of backwash (washback). The nature of a test may firstaffect the perceptions and
attitudes of the participants towards their teaching and learning tasks. The perceptions and attitudes in turn may
affect what the participants do in carrying out their work(process), including practicing the kind of items that are
to be found in the test, which will affect the learning outcomes, the product of the work. Mostly, the empirical
researches on washback effecthave encompassed the participants, process and product tracheotomy of Hughes
framework. The participantsto be influenced by washback effect are recognizedas language testers, teacher
trainers, teachers, learners, parents, counselors, administrators, material developers, curriculum designers
sponsors and funding bodies, government bodies, the public, various national and international examination
authorities , all of whose perceptions and attitudes towards their work maybe affected by a test. The process
includes any action taken by the participants which may contribute to the process of learning. And, the product
includes what is learnt (facts, skills etc.) and the quality of learning (fluency, etc.).Washback affects differently
to its stakeholders. The major impact receivers however, are recognized as teacher and learners. Whereas,
teaching and learning change with the thought of testing. Shohamey (1993) reported in her study different
changes taking place in classroom instructions as the exams drew nearer. The teacher started reviewing the text
instead of teaching new text. The textbook was replaced with the worksheets of the previous year. The classroom
atmosphere was alltest-like. Some extra sessions were added to the class instructions hours to review
thoroughly the material already covered. The students were motivated by the teacher to have mastery on the
exam material. The learners strategy is also reported to change with the idea of examination. Eckstein and Noah
(1993) wrote that, They (the students) have had little incentive to study anything that will not be on examination
paper. There is no time in their classes to explore questions that are unlikely to come up in the test. Bailey (1996)
wrote that confronted with an important examination, the students may be involved in one or all the following
practices (but not limited to them, of course):
Practising items similar in format to those on the test.
Studying vocabulary and grammar rules.
Participating in interactive language practice (e.g., target language conversations).
Reading widely in the target language.
Listening to non-interactive language (radio, television, etc.).
Applying test-taking strategies.
Enrolling in test-preparation courses.
Requesting guidance in their studying and feedback on their performance.
Enrolling in, requesting or demanding additional (unscheduled) test-preparation classes or tutorials (in
addition to or in lieu of other language classes).
Skipping language classes to study for the test.
All of the above mentioned changes in teaching and learning process affect either positively or negatively to the
participants, processes and products of teaching and learning. The following is a brief detail of these two types of
washback effect.
3.1 Positive and Negative Washback Effect
Wash back operates differently in different situations. In itself, washback is a neutral term which can infer
positively or negatively on the stakeholders (Buck,1988 and Shohamy, et al, 1996). Bailey (1996:269) said,
Washback can either be positive or negative to theextent that it either promotes or impedes the accomplishment
of educational goals held by learners and/or program personnel (as quoted by Spratt, 2005). Most of the
prevalent research, however, seems to be done to trace the so called negative washback effect of testing. Tests
have their effects on the stakeholders, there is nodoubt in it, yet what is the direction of these effects and how
much influential these effects are, is still hard to trace. More research is needed in this direction to decide clearly
the intensity and direction of it. Some researchers, however, have set a rough criterion and demonstrated some
apparent symptoms to decide whether the test influence is positive or negative. Alderson and Wall (1993, as cited
in Djuric, 2008:17) indicated that if teachers use tests to make their students pay more attention to learning, it is
positive influence of testing. If the teachers narrow curriculum to make their students more sharp on the exams,
it will be a negative influence of testing on the students learning. And normally, these will be a result of the
teachers fear of their students poor results. Alderson and Wall (1993) asserted that, If there were no conflicts in
the aims, activities,or the marking criteria of the textbook and the exam, and if teachers accepted these and
worked towards them, then a positive washback could be assumed to have occurred. Teachers would be teaching
the textbook because they would realize that any of the text types or tasks therein might appear in the final exam.
Pan (2009) however, summarized the positive washback effect in the following points:
i. Tests induce teachers to cover their subjects more thoroughly, making them complete their syllabi within the
64

Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

prescribed time limits.

ii. Tests motivate students to work harder to have a sense of accomplishment and thus enhance learning.
iii. Good tests can be utilized and designed as beneficial teaching-learning activities so as to encourage positive
teaching-learning processes.
Shohamey (1992, as quoted by Bailey, 1996:266) indicated some conditions which can promote negative
washback. She writes that:
After all, when reliance is on tests to create change; when emphasis is mostly on proficiency and lesson the
means that lead to it (i.e., what takes place in the classroom as part of the learning process); when tests are
introduced as authoritative tools, are judgemental, prescriptive, and dictated from above; when the writing of
tests does not involve those who areexpected to carry out the changethe teachers; and when the information
tests provide is not detailed and specific and does not contain meaningful feedback and diagnosis that can be
used for repair,it is difficult to expect that tests will lead to meaningful improvement in learning. Anderson, et al
(1990) mentioned the habit of rote memorization in learners as a negative washback effect. Major discrepancies
have been reported between testdevelopers intentions and that of the classroom practices which lead to create
negative washback effect. Drawing on the possibility of negative washback effect,Alderson and Wall (1993)
wrote that, There was always a possibility that the exam and the textbook would be pulling in different
directionsthe most obvious danger was that teachers might concentrate on reading and writing rather than
listening and speaking, since the oral skills were not to be tested. There were several other ways in which the
examination could work against the textbook if it did not reflect the goals as fully as it should have. This would
constitute negative washback. The following summarized hints, however, were forwarded by Pan (2009) to
indicate negative washback effect:
i. Tests encourage teachers to narrow the curriculum and lose instructional time, leading to teaching to the
test.
ii. Tests bring anxiety both to teachers and students and distort their performance.
iii. Students may not be able to learn real-life knowledge, but instead learn discrete points of knowledge that are
tested.
iv. Cramming will lead students to have a negative washback toward tests and accordingly alter their learning
motivation.
In a nut shell, positive washback induces meaningful and effective learning activities in classroom. The teachers
will focus on completing the syllabus. The learnerswill feel incentive in a thorough learning of all language skills.
On the higher level educational settings, the school authority will use testing to achieve educationalgoals. But it
will turn to negative washback effect if the authority uses these tests to get power and create anxiety among
school stall and students.
3.2 How to Foster Positive Washback Effect?
Shohamy (1993:515) emphasized on the timely and detailed provision of test scores which are easily
interpretable to foster positive washback effect from testing. Test scores should be credible for the test-takers
(Spratt, 2005). Cheng (1997) wrote that teachers selection of methodology is affected by the thought that the
students have to take a certain test. The teacher has been recognized as the most prominent figure to reduce the
negative washback effect from testing. Bailey (1996) holds that the objectives and goals of examination should
be clearly articulated to foster beneficial washback, make sure whether the test measures what the program
intends to measure, and must be based on sound theoretical principles which are widely accepted in the field
since a narrow view of linguistic competence has been replaced by a broader perspective on communicative
competence. Similarly, Hughes (1989, p44-46) asserted that those skills should be tested which are intended to
promote in students, through direct testing and criterion-referenced. Hughes (1989: 1) wrote that those abilities
of the learners should be tested whose development is to be encouraged. The testers should be unpredictable in
testing and, a wide array of samples should be considered while modeling the tests. Moreover, direct testing can
be better than an indirect one. The objectives of learning should be kept in mind in testing the learning outcomes.
The testers should be prudent enough in making understandable tests for both, the teachers and the learners. A
co-ordination between the teacher and testers can also prove helpful in fostering positive washback effect. Bailey
(1996:276-277) posed the following eight questions to find out whether testing will bring positive washback
effect on teaching and learning, or not:
1) Do the participants understand the purpose(s) ofthe test and the intended use(s) of the results?
2) Are the results provided in a clear, informativeand timely fashion?
3) Are the results perceived as believable and fairby the participants?
4) Does the test measure what the program intends to teach?
5) Is the test based on clearly articulated goals and objectives?
65

Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

6) Is the test based on sound theoretical principles which have current credibility in the field?
7) Does the test utilize authentic texts and authentic tasks?
8) Are the participants invested in the assessment processes?
4. Some Pedagogical Implications of the Washback Effect
Parents involvement in the process of assessment has also been reported to affect positively. Cheng, et al (2011)
study included the parents perspectives on students examinations. His two surveys, one with the students and
the other with the parents show a close relationship with each other on the issue of school based assessment.
Rea-Dicken (1997: 311) emphasizes on an active involvement of all stake holders in the assessment system. She
wrote that, The benefits of enhancing fairness through stakeholder approaches to assessment are clear. If teachers
are given opportunities, starting through dialogue and working with the materials to develop a greater
understanding of assessment process, then they in turn, will become better skilled in constructing tests. Learners
should learn to become better test takers.Stakeholders involvement promotes democratization, and it leads to
more local control, thus promoting greater fairness within assessment and teaching practices.
4.1 Teachers Role
The teachers role has been emphasizes throughout the literature on washback to reduce its negative influences
on teaching and learning. Bailey (2005) wrote that,We may have limited power to influence high stakes national
and international examinations, but we do have tremendous power to lead students to learn, to teach them
language and how to work with tests and test results. The beliefs of teachers play crucial role in determining the
impact of washback. Spratt (2005) assertd that the role of teacher, indeed, decides the intensity and direction of
the washback effect. Spratt (2005:17) stated that:
The type and amount of washback on teaching methodology appears to vary from context to context and teacher
to teacher. It varies from no reported washback to considerable washback. The variable in these differences
appears to be not so much the exam itself as the teacherNevertheless, the empirical studies reviewed (on
washback effect) indicate strongly that an exam cannot of itself dictate what and how teachers teach and learners
learn. Degree and kinds of washback occur through the agency of various intervening bodies and are shaped by
them. An important and influential agent in this process is the teacher.
Teacher Assessment Literacy (TAL) is another idea forwarded by some scholars (Kiomers, 2011). It is argued
that teachers are normally not much aware of the philosophy of evaluation which brings negative impact to the
students learning. If teachers possess appropriateknowledge of testing, they can hinder the negativewashback
effect on their teaching and students learning. Inbar-Lourie (2008) also asserted that the traditional assessment
training to the teachers has led to produce negative impact of testing on the teaching and learning process.
Teachers fear of the poor results of students exam can be reduced by involving them in the process of high
stakes testing along with teaching. Exam-specific teachers training has been suggested by some researchers
which can improve communication between testers andteachers. Likewise, the testers should get course-specific
training (Djuric, 2008).
4.2 How to Investigate Washback
How to investigate washback effect has remained a matter of concern for the researchers. The intensityand
direction of washback effect is not easy to determine since numerous personal and contextual factors interact in
determining the impact of testing on the classroom practices (Watanabe 2004, Alderson and Hamp-Lyons 1996).
Some researchers seem to be skeptical about its occurrence even. Alderson and Wall (1993) pointed out in their
study that, what we did not know was just how difficult it would be to determine whether washback has
occurred at all, and to decide, if there were no evidence for it, whether this was because there was no such thing
or because there were conditions in the educationalsetting that were preventing it from getting through (as cited
in Cheng, 1997). Alderson and Wall (1993) advocate a series of proposals for research which indicates the
necessity of further research in this filed. Spratt (2005) has emphasized on classroom observation and a
triangulation of data source. This seems appropriate since the prevailing empirical research has used either
classroom observation, or learners, teachers or parents perception, or experimental design with pre-test/post-test,
etc. Very few researchers have combined the research methodologies to evaluate thephenomenon.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Washback is presented as a stimulus for a change and as a bridge for efficient communication between teachers
and testers (Djuric, 2008). Though washback effect is not a new concept in the annals of educational assessment
and its history can be traced in as early as Latham (1877), yet empirical evidence to this effect is comparatively
new (Cheng, 2011). There is found a lack of understanding as to how washback works (Alderson and Wall,
1993). The focus of most of the studies has remained to investigate positive or negative washback effect on
teachers, students, teaching methodology,learning strategies, students and teachers attitudes and beliefs, course
content or teaching materials, etc.The researchers have emphasized on the congruity between tests and
66

Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

curriculum objectives, learners self evaluation, meaningful feedback, authentic tasks, a variety of testing and
tasks, an increased understanding of testing criterion by the teachers and students, detailed score reporting by the
testers, etc. (Bailey, 1996; Hughes, 1989; Messick, 1996; Shohamy, 1992; Bachman and Palmer, 1996).
Washback is not inevitable and also that it is malleable (Spratt, 2005). The test scores being used asaccurate
information of the students learning is also not very credible in all cases. The ethical issues are also subject to
public questioning (Smith, 1991). Spratt (2005) concluded that, an exam cannot of itself dictate whatand how
teachers teach and learners learn. Degrees and kinds of washback occur through the agency of various
intervening bodies and are shaped by them.This study does not claim to include all empirical research till now
done on washback effect. Examinations are crucial and all efforts should be directed to bring out positive
washback effect from testing. Thevariety of terminology used for it does not indicate difference of meaning since
the focus of every term used forit has one focus of studying the influences of testing on the process of teaching
and learning. The prevailing empirical research lacks in leading towards any specific direction or indicating
intensity of the washback effect. Still many vague ideas prevail which make washback a speculative
phenomenon. Most of the researches taken till now fail to include multifarious perspectives involved in shaping
washback and, all efforts have been put to prove the so called negative washback effect from examinations
without considering complexity of the phenomenon. Teachers assessment literacy is acomparatively newidea
which should be rooted in the pre-service and post-service teachers training programs. There is aneed to
undertake larger studies to bring about generalizable results.
References
Alderson, J. C. and Wall, D. (1993), Does washbackexist? Applied Linguistics14, (2), June 1993.
Alderson, J. C. and Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996) , TOEFL preparation courses: a study of washback. Language
Testing13(3): 280-97.
Anderson, J. O., Muir, W., Bateson, D. J., Blackmore, D., & Rogers, W. T. (1990), The impact of provincial
examinations on education in British Columbia: General report. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Education.
Andrews, S. (2004), Washback and curriculum innovation. In L.Cheng., Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis, (Eds.), Washback in
language testing: Research contexts andmethods(pp.37-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996), Language testing in practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, K.M. (1996) , Working for washback: a review of the washback concept in language testing. Language
Testing13(3): 257-79.
Bailey, K.M. (2005) Looking back down the road: A recent history of language classroom research. Review of
Applied Linguistics in China, 1,pp. 6-47.
Biggs, J. B. (1995), Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. Curriculum Forum, 4(2), 1
22.
Buck, G. (1988) Testing listening comprehension in Japanese university entrance examinations. JALT Journal10, 15-42.
Cheng, L. (1997) , How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education,
11(1), 38-54.
Cheng, L. (2005) , Changing language teaching through language testing: a washback study. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Cheng, L. (2008), The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25, 15-37.
Cheng, L., Stephen, A. and Yu, Y. (2011), Impact and consequences of school-based assessment (SBA): Students' and
parents' views of SBA in Hong Kong. Language Testing 28: 221-249
Davies, A. (1990) , Principles of language testing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Djuric, M. (2008) Dealing with situation of positive and negative washback. Scripta Manent4(1), 14-27
Eckstein, M.A. and Noah, H.J. (1993), Examinations: Comparative and International studies (Eds.). Pergamon
Comparative & International Education Series. Owford: Pergamon Press.
Frederickson and Colling (1989 ), A systems approach to educationaltesting. Educational Researcher18 (9), 27-32.
Hughes, A. (1989) , Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (1993) ,Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished manuscript, University of Reading. Inbar-Lourie, O.
(2008) , Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses. Language
Testing, 25(3), 385-402
Kiomrs, R. ( 2011) , On the interaction of test washback and teacher assessment literacy: The case of Iranian EFL
secondary school teachers. English Language Teaching4(1): 156-161
Latham, H. (1877), On the action of examinations considered as a meansof selection. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell.
Madaus, G.F. (1988), The influence of testing on the curriculum. InTanner, L.N., editor, Critical issues in curriculum:
eighty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1), Chicago: University of Chicago

67

Journal of Education and Practice

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.4, No.26, 2013

www.iiste.org

Press. Marrow,K. (1986) , The evaluation of tests of communicative performance.In Portal, M., editor, Innovations in
language testing. Windsor:NFER/Nelson, 1-13.
Spratt, M. (2005) , Washback and the classroom: theimplications for teaching and learning of studies of washback
from exams. Language Teaching Research (9): 5-29
McNamara, T. (2000), Language Testing. Oxfod University Press, Oxford, 2000
Messick, S. (1989 ), Validity. In Linn, R., (ed.), Educational measurement, New York: ACE/Macmillan, 447-74.
Messick, S. (1996 ), Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing13, 241-56.
Pan, Y. (2009) A review of washback and its pedagogical implications. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages,
25: 257-263
Pearson (1988:07) , Tests as levers for change. In Chamberlain, D. and Baumgardner, R., editors, ESP in the
Classroom: Practice and Evaluation, ELT Documents 128. London: Modern English Publications,98-107.
Rea-Dickens, P. (1997), So, why do we need relationship with stakeholders in language testing? A viewfrom the UK.
Language Testing14, 304-314
Shohamy, E. (1992) , Beyond proficiency testing: a diagnostic feedback testing modal for assessing foreign language
learning. The Modern Language Journal76, 513-521
Shohamy, E. (1993), The power of tests: the impactof language tests on teaching and learning. NFLC Occasional
Paper. Washington, DC: National ForeignLanguage Center.
Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S. and Ferman, I. (1996), Test impact revisited: washback effect over time. Language
Testing13(3): 298_317.
Smith, M.L. (1991) , Meanings of test preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3): 521_42.
Spolsky, B. (1994), The examination-classroom backwash cycle: Some historical cases. In D. Nunan, R. Berry, R., & V.
Berry (Eds.), Bringing about change in language education: Proceedings of the International Language in Education
Conference 1994 (pp. 55-66). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Spratt, M. (2005), Washback and the classroom: Theimplications for teaching and learning of studies of washback
from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 5- 29.
Wall, D. (1997), Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (pp.291302). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Wall, D. and Alderson, C.( 1993), Examining washback: the Sri Lankan Impact Study. Language Testing10, 41-69.
Watanabe, Y. (2004), Teacher factors mediating washback. In Cheng L., Y. Watanabe & A. Curtis (Eds.). Washback in
Language Testing: Research Contexts andMethods. (pp. 129-146).NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.

68

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,
Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access
Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is
Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.
More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTEs homepage:
http://www.iiste.org
CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS
The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and
collaborating with academic institutions around the world. Theres no deadline for
submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission
instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/
The IISTE
editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a
fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the
world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from
gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available
upon request of readers and authors.
MORE RESOURCES
Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/
Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/
IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open
Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar