CC BY
37
THE CONCEPT OF WASHBACK AND ITS PECULIARITIES IN LANGUAGE TESTING Khaknazarova Z.A.
Khaknazarova Zilola Azamatovna - Teacher, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY, ENGLISH LANGUAGES FACULTY 3, UZBEKISTAN STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY, TASHKENT, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: this article aims to explore the construct of language testing washback by reviewing related literatures. It also provides an extended definition of washback andrelated concepts, such as positive (beneficial) and negative (harmful) washback, its importance and role in language testing and assessment.
Keywords: language testing, test impact, washback, negative washback, positive washback.
A well-designed test should encourage good teaching, whereas a poorly designed test will tempt teachers and learners into practices that have limited value in relation to long-term learning goals. Along with other basic principles of designing effective language tests, such as practicality, reliability, validity, and authenticity, washback is also considered as one of the major criteria for developing and evaluating language tests.
The term "backwash " has been used to refer to the way a test affects teaching materials and classroom management, although within the applied linguistics and language testing community the term "washback" is more widely used today. The definitions of washback and related concepts are almost as many as the people who write about it. Some tend to focus on teachers and students in the classroom environment, while other, more complex, tend to involve references to what influences tests might have on the educational system or even society in general.
In his 1989 book, Testing for Language Teachers, Hughes simply defines washback as "the effect of testing on teaching and learning". Bachman and Palmer state, however, that washback is a more complex phenomenon than simply the effect of a test on teaching and learning [3, 35]. Instead, they have discussed washback as a subset of a test's impact on society, educational systems, and individuals. They feel the impact of a test should be evaluated with reference to the contextual variables of society's goals and values, the educational system in which the test is used, and the potential outcomes of its use. They note that test impact operates at two levels: the micro level (i.e., the effect of the test on individual students and teachers) and the macro level (the impact on society and its educational systems).
Generally, washback is perceived as being either negative (harmful) or positive (beneficial). Negative washback is said to occur when a test's content or format is based on a narrow definition of language ability, and so constrains the teaching/learning context. Bachman et al. offer the following illustration: "If, for example, the skill of writing is tested only by multiple choice items then there is great pressure to practise such items rather than to practise the skill of writing itself' [1, 225]. Positive washback is said to result when a testing procedure encourages "good" teaching practice; for example, an oral proficiency test is introduced in the expectation that it will promote the teaching of speaking skills. Thus, a test that provides beneficial washback:
• positively influences what and how teachers teach;
• positively influences what and how learners learn;
• offers learners a chance to adequately prepare;
• gives learners feedback that enhances their language development;
• is more formative in nature than summative;
• provides conditions for peak performance by the learner.
Messick points out that tests which promote positive washback are likely to include tasks which are criterion samples - that is, "authentic and direct samples of the communicative behaviors of listening, speaking, reading and writing of the language being learnt", and he adds that the transition from learning exercises to test exercises "should be seamless" [3, 241].
Hughes' textbook on testing for language teachers includes a brief chapter about promoting beneficial backwash, in which he lists the following suggestions [2, 44-47]:
1. Test the abilities whose development you want to encourage.
2. Sample widely and unpredictably.
3. Use direct testing.
4. Make testing criterion-referenced.
5. Base achievement on objectives.
6. Ensure [that the] test is known and understood by students and teachers.
7. Where necessary, provide assistance to teachers.
This advice is based on Hughes' own research, as well as his experience as both a test developer and teacher educator. To sum up, positive washback can motivate students to learn more; this positively influences teachers, thus further improving the classroom environment. Teachers should ask themselves, after designing an assessment, if the assessment is practical, reliable, valid, authentic, and evocative of positive washback. From this precise review of the literature, we can realise that language testing washback has often been discussed; is generally defined as the influence of testing on teaching and learning; that there are differing points of view about what the construct may encompass.
References
1. Bachman L.F., Palmer A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Hughes A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Messick S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. LanguageTesting, 13(3), 241-256.
