Washback, Impact and Consequences
- PDF / 153,361 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 439.37 x 663.307 pts Page_size
- 12 Downloads / 176 Views
WASHBACK, IMPACT AND CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
Testing, large-scale high-stakes testing in particular, tends to induce consequences for its stakeholders. It is clear that “testing is never a neutral process and always has consequences” (Stobart, 2003, p. 140). Testing is a differentiating ritual for students: “for every one who advances there will be some who stay behind” (Wall, 2000, p. 500). It is well known in the field of education that there is a set of relationships, intended and unintended, positive and negative, between testing, teaching and learning. The earliest literature can possibly be traced back to Latham (1877) when he referred to an examination system as an “encroaching power,” and How it influences the prevalent view of life and work among young men, and how it affects parents, teachers, the writers of educational books, and the notion of the public about education (p. 2). Washback and impact of language testing is, however, a relatively new concept. Comparatively, there is a longer and more substantial amount of research conducted in general education where researchers refer to the phenomenon as measurement-driven instruction (e.g., Popham, 1987), test-curriculum alignment (Shepard, 1990), and consequences (Cizek, 2001) (see Cheng and Curtis, 2004 for a detailed review). The concept of measurement-driven instruction stipulates that testing should drive instruction. Test-curriculum alignment focuses on the relationship between test content and curriculum, which can result in narrowing of the curriculum by teaching the test. Consequences of high-stakes testing refer to both intended or unintended and positive or negative aspects of instruction, students, teachers, and the school. Only since the late 1980s, there has been a rapid increasing number of studies conducted in language testing (see Alderson and Wall, 1993; Bailey, 1996; Wall, 1997 for a review of earlier washback studies). Wall (1997) defines impact as “any of the effects that a test may have on individuals, policies or practices, within the classroom, the school, the educational system or society as a whole.” She also points out that “washback (also known as backwash) is sometimes used as a synonym of impact, but it is more frequently used to refer to the effects of tests on teaching and learning” (p. 291). Some language testers consider
E. Shohamy and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 7: Language Testing and Assessment, 349–364. #2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
350
LIYING CHENG
washback as one dimension of impact (Bachman and Palmer, 1996; Hamp-Lyons, 1997). Hamp-Lyons (1997) suggested a view of test influence that would fall between the narrow one of washback and the all-encompassing one of impact. Primarily, the effects of testing on teaching and learning have been associated with test validity (consequential validity) where Messick refers to washback as “only one form of testing consequences that need to be weighted in evaluating validity” (Messick, 1996, p. 243). He prom
Data Loading...
