雖然今年命格是走衰運,我還是要努力. 才能得到神的幫助. 另外誠如我上個月所言核電之潛在危機, 日本政府這個月已經決定關閉某些核電廠了.
Rethinking washback through empirical case studies : What’s mediating teacher decision-making within the EFL classroom
Tieh-Chung Yang1 & Mark Priestley2
1Foreign Language Teaching Section, Air Force Academy Taiwan
2Institute of Education, Stirling University , Scotland
ABSTRACT
Over the past few decades, the washback studies have overemphasized on the concerns of testing in relation to teaching practice and learning outcomes in schools. We argue that all teaching practices are socially embedded, and constantly challenged by individual perceptions and beliefs. To balance such unbalanced language testing literature, this study therefore looked at into the context of major international standardized English test systems, particularly in the cases of English teaching and learning at the tertiary level. The present research adopted a multi-case study approach to explore how washback effects, contextual factors and teachers’ beliefs interact with practice performed in the classrooms of English classes teaching norm-referenced ECL and criterion-referenced TOEFL test preparation. Four EFL teachers from the Foreign Language Teaching Centres at the Air Force Academy and the Air Force Institute of Technology (in Taiwan
Key words: Contextual factors, English teaching, Language testing, Teacher beliefs, TOEFL iBT, Washback
Introduction
Underlying the theory of washback are the assumptions pertaining to the influence of a test on teaching and learning, and theoretical perspectives on how to use a test improve language learning and teaching. However, these abundant washback studies have overemphasized on the concerns of testing in relation to teaching practice and learning outcomes in schools. We argue that all teaching practices are socially embedded, and constantly challenged by individual perceptions and beliefs. There has been comparatively little research into concerning the beliefs about language learning that teachers hold and their own environment and how these inform teachers’ pedagogical decision making. The research of washback has long been assumed that the context is controlled and neutralized, but in fact it is significantly influential. There is much debate on the research of washback because planned innovation in assessment is unlikely successful without vastly improved attention to the role of teacher and the contextual variation in English language learning. The core concepts of washback on practices and student learning need to be reinterpreted from other contexts.
Background
With the rapid development of Taiwan 2003” the aim was to foster students’ foreign language capacity. Colleges and universities have adapted international standardized language assessments as yardsticks to measure academic performance. Before long the MOE in 2008 decided to adopt “CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment)” for relevant English language proficiencies. With the least possible delay, “Plan for Enhancing National English Proficiency” was approved by the Executive Yuan to urge for the school accountability (MOE, 2009). Most recently, the draft of “2011 Taiwan
Such outcomes-based approaches have, in particular, attracted a large political following from those seeking “accountability” for educational investment … as we enter a new millennium, that the business of improving learning competencies and skills will remain one of the world’s fastest growing industries and priorities (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.l48).
Currently in Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan
The movement of rigorous standards with achievement measured through testing has triggered the greatest debate on the path of education reforms in Taiwan Taiwan
Recently, new international language tests employed in Taiwan
Ideally, all teachers expect their students to be able to develop all essential skills to solve problems with what they have learned in the classroom. This goal as seen on many education systems, teachers must prepare their students having critical thinking and life-long learning skills. In Taiwan
The study
This study therefore investigates teachers’ decisions on the implementation of such English test-driven curriculum focusing specially on the context and the individual teacher. We look at into the context of major international standardized English test systems in Taiwan
Although numerous studies have investigated the influence of test on classroom practice, none of the studies explicitly describe contextual factors and teachers’ pedagogical beliefs the potential of the test causing washback effects for facilitating the implementation of those pedagogical beliefs. There is a pressing need to look at how English teachers integrate assessment tests into their classroom, and how teacher belief and contextual factors have influenced the teachers’ classroom practice. This study argues that research on the phenomena of washback should not exclude psychological and ecological factors which play in mediating practices. The findings of the present research can provide educational practitioners and applied linguists with firstly suggestions about how teachers’ beliefs and contextual factors interact with one another to affect teachers’ practice and test preparation for students, and secondly suggestions about using alternative perspectives to implement curriculum innovations through testing in educational systems.
Literature review
The term washback is frequently used in language studies to address the influence of testing on teaching and learning. Although the older term backwash is used by some education scholars, the discussions of this phenomenon in British Language Testing have tended to use the term “washback” rather than “backwash.” No matter to use washback or backwash to describe the type of influence of test on teaching and learning we believe is problematic. The definition of washback that tests affect teachers and learners and thereby affect teaching and learning cannot illustrate the logic and range of testing impacts. Neither can it capture the complex relationship between assessment and instruction within mandated English curriculum in Taiwan
1. Reforming school curriculum. The examination dictates the activities in schools.
2. Reshaping course syllabus. Syllabus design is usually based on the retired examination papers and is administered similar type and content year after year.
3. Regaining accountability. The examinations are regarded useful and desirable to improve the effectiveness of teaching.
4. Reinforcing test validity. Especially, good tests are educationally beneficial and thus taking washback for granted. Therefore, curriculum changes must be started through changes in testing.
5. Resetting learning outcomes. Thus the examination standards define students’ learning content and performance objectives.
6. Changing teaching content and method. Teachers’ teaching method and learning tasks can be improved because of washback.
However, we should focus on the aspect of washback on “changing teaching content and method” to refer to how washback of a test might influence teacher decision-making. Also, there is a need to propose the typology to show the detailed impacts of the test on teachers in terms of content and method. This therefore is a pedagogical rather than overall impact of the typology. The above classifications of washback effect conceptualize the influences of a test on overall educational organization, while it is likely that washback on teaching is more complex. Indeed there may be impacted ranges on teaching. To enhance our understanding of how washback may occur in English teaching and learning, we need to propose the following categories:
l Language skills – traditionally isolated skills that taught independently of one another; or innovatively integrated skills that combined with other language skills.
l Teaching approaches – teaching that focuses on communication with student-centred methods; or focuses on rote knowledge with teacher-centred methods.
l Tasks and activities – arranging teaching for test practices; or including other higher-order cognitive tasks such as critical thinking, problem-solving, information gap, etc.
l Materials used – the use of mock tests and test taking techniques; or the use of topics to bring learning content from daily life.
l Content focused – teach largely test related content; or academically curricular English courses.
Thus wasback effects on teacher decision-making may involve the selection to teaching of language skills, exhibiting high degrees of integrated approaches for communicative competence; or they may remain isolated skill, separating reading, writing, listening or speaking from different classes. Teachers carry out assessment-led tasks or academic-based learning processes for study skills. These categories are likely to demonstrate the extent to which washback has influenced on teaching. Above categories of washback on teaching might help us to clarify our thinking if we attempt to apply Alderson & Wall’s (1992) Washback Hypotheses. The point they are making is that Washback Hypotheses are assuming about how people are influenced. They assert that any test, good or bad, can be said to have beneficial or detrimental washback. The assertion is that a test forces people to do certain things. Some possible Washback Hypotheses:
1) A test will influence teaching.
2) A test will influence learning.
3) A test will influence how teachers teach.
4) A test will influence what teachers teach.
5) A test will influence what learners learn.
6) A test will influence how learners learn.
7) A test will influence the rate and sequence of learning.
8) A test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching.
9) A test will influence the degree and depth of learning.
10) A test will influence the degree and depth of teaching.
11) A test will influence attitudes to the content, method, etc. of teaching / learning.
12) Tests that have important consequences will have washback.
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.
Washback Hypotheses include variables of the content of the test, rate, sequence, degree, depth, methodology of the teaching / learning, and the importance of the consequences of performance on a test. However, Alderson and Wall in their last hypothesis remind us to look at other variables operating within individuals, since tests have effects for some learners and some teachers but not for others. This implies that washback does not work to a variety of people in different contexts. This is truly what we are arguing about taking the context and the role of teacher into account on teacher decision-making. Therefore, Alderson and Wall suggest washback research must aim to develop “increasing spcifications of the Washback Hypothesis.”
Traditionally, test designers assumed a valid and reliable test would exert great effects on school curriculum and teaching practice. Morrow (1986), Hughes (1989) and Bachman & Palmer (1996) assert that test qualities ensure test usefulness of a particular test. However, things were not as simplistic as test writers and administrators expected, as a growing evidence of research has indicated that the outcomes of washback effects can be positive, negative or neutral. Some cases of schools have found positive washback, but some schools have more negative washback. Wall and Alderson (1993) in the Sri Lankan impact study found that there was evidence of washack on the content of teaching, but no evidence on methodology. The significance of this study was to uncover important limitations in using examinations to bring about systemic change. Shohamy, Donitsa-Schmidt, and Ferman (1996) in two new Israeli national tests found that class activities became “test-like” and tense. Alderson and Hamp-Lyons (1996) in TOEFL test preparation courses found that most teachers have a negative attitude to the TOEFL. They suggest the existence of a test by itself does not guarantee washback, either positive or negative. Cheng (1997) in Hong Kong public examinations found that washback intensity to refer to the degree of washback effect in some areas of teaching and learning affected by the examinations. Cheng concluded that several issues would need to be considered in future investigations including the examination of the educational context, and the analysis of the role of teacher. Most recently, Qi (2004) in China
Teachers’ beliefs, conceptions, and attitudes have played an important role in the classroom context. Nespor (1987), Pajares (1992), Johnson (1994), Fang (1996), Borg (2001) and Peacock (2001) in teacher education research show that teacher beliefs have profoundly influenced teachers’ instructional behaviours and these beliefs are largely associated with their past learning experience and knowledge. Teacher beliefs precede the behaviours employed in teaching and can provide the explanations for their own classroom practices. The ways they conceptualize teaching have an impact on how they carry out tasks for student learning. Johnson (1999) observes that some teachers’ opinionated beliefs and limited knowledge lead to the narrowing curriculum that they are willing to instruct for their students. The enormous impact of teachers’ beliefs should not be ignored and Urmston (2003) suggests “understanding teachers’ beliefs can be used to eliminate any detrimental beliefs, to foster positive beliefs, and to lead to successful instruction.” Studies on teacher belief (Freeman, 1992; Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1992; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Peacock, 1998, 2001; Tardy & Snyder, 2004) have shown the great implications for classroom teachers.
There are a variety of language assessment tests to be adapted by English teachers forming test preparation courses into their specific contexts. However, some of language tests were welcomed, accepted, and employed, but undeniably some were rejected, unacknowledged, and hindered in the contexts of EFL teaching. Shohamy et. al. (1996) state if exams are widely supported by principals and administrators to enforce learning, tests and quizzes are used by teachers to motivate learning. Popham (1987) points out high-stakes environments in which the result of mandated tests trigger rewards, teachers will be motivated to pursue the objectives that the test embodies. Watanabe (1996) considers that the personal characteristics of the teachers have an important role to play in how teachers conduct their lessons. Green and Andrade (2010) investigate a multifaceted interaction among factors affecting language test reform. They guide practitioners to examine the relationships and interactions among contexts, test development processes, stakeholder agency and the desire for change, and the agents promoting the reform.
Regarding overall EFL context, communicative testing has in recent years become a fashionable term to the ESL areas, but to a lesser extent in the EFL areas. Students living in ESL countries have more opportunities to speak and use English than EFL students. Studies about Chinese learners and teachers have revealed a huge gap between culture and learning. Chinese learners seem to prefer learning by memorization and repetition (Hu, 2002). Chinese teachers of English deliver a great deal of grammar in class for students to memorize. They use the grammar-translation method and teacher-fronted style for their English teaching most of the time. Culturally, Chinese teachers’ beliefs about teaching have been much influenced by Confucian disciplines which emphasize a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student, teaching without distinction of classes, and learning to accumulate knowledge (Harvey, 1985; Rao, 2002). Compared with other countries, Chinese society concerns more on students’ scores and this has led to “measurement-driven instruction” or so called “exam coaching” and test preparation courses for students (Yu, 2001). Liang (1991) and Shih (2009) investigate the teaching settings, and suggest micro-level contextual factors (e.g., the objectives of the course) and teacher factors to have a greater impact on teachers' instruction. Watanabe (2004) asserts the importance of incorporating reattribution in teacher development courses during the test development process. Qi (2004) suggests a range of contextual factors that might hinder intended washback and concludes investigation into these factors. Zeng (2002) investigated personal characteristics and language test performance in the Chinese EFL context. The author offered insights into the development of computer-based language tests in China
The present study therefore focused on two issues: One issue was what teachers think about the impact that testing (through washback) has on their teaching; and the other issue was how existing belief sets and teaching ecology might mediate and mitigate the washback effect on practice in individual case. This approach would require research questions to:
1. What attitudes to and beliefs about English language teaching and learning do experienced EFL teachers have at the air force military colleges in Taiwan?
2. What will washback effects of testing affect classroom practices at the air force military colleges in Taiwan
3. What other contextual conditions affect classroom practices?
Research methods
The present research adopted a multi-case study approach to explore how washback effects, contextual factors and teachers’ beliefs interact with practice performed in the classrooms of English classes learning ECL and TOEFL test preparation at the air force colleges in Taiwan Air Force Academy and the Air Force Institute of Technology (Taiwan
The procedures of the research are at first to conduct a baseline interview to understand teachers’ beliefs about the impacts of testing programs on English teaching and learning. The second session is to conduct several classroom observations to collect the evidence of day-to-day classroom practice. Finally, the third session of the research is to use the videotaped recordings of classroom practice to stimulate English teachers to provide more about their beliefs and to clarify if their beliefs contradict with their practice through several follow-up interviews. The participants in this study were two English teachers from the Air Force Institute of Technology and two English teachers from the Air Force Academy in the academic years of 2009-2010.
To some extent, however, any research must develop its own coding scheme, if it is to answer its own particular research questions. Thus, we have to make some adjustments in order to deal with the "washback" or testing impacts on teaching. We adopted four categories from the COLT scheme – into seven categories Using Items Released, Activity, Content, Material, Use of Materials, Student Participation, and Language Used. In Using Items Released category wel add more sub-categories, e.g., “Mock Test practices,” “Answering test questions,” “Lecturing test-taking strategies,” “Assessing test-taking strategies,” “Tutoring tests and strategies,” “Assessing test contents,” “Student self-reviewing and practicing,” and “Test score reports and discussions.” related to testing.
Therefore, to have an appropriate measure, an episode, the basic unit of analysis in classroom observation, is operationally defined to count the frequency and the amount of time with which different kinds of behaviours are observed in the classroom, including TOEFL iBT and ECL for English language teaching. In the present study, we identify the four participating teachers as Tina, Mary, Andy and Lee. The characteristics of all participants are shown in Table 1 below.
All teachers in the present study are having a master degree with sufficient teaching experience and equivalent education background. However, the school context which they work for is quite different from each other. English curriculum at the Academy is 3-4 hours of English per week, but the Institute’s intensive English programs are having 16-20 hours per week. Institute’s teachers work longer hours than Academy’s teachers do. However, Academy’s teachers must conduct research and have papers published. Institute’s teachers are evaluated the quality of teaching on the basis of students’ achievement on the test. Therefore, Institutes’ teachers must attend teacher development twice a year to drill their teaching techniques, but Academy’s teachers are seldom or never attend the teacher education. Under the contract of “Golden Parachute” or so called “Iron Bowl” a lifelong secure job, Academy’s teachers are not afraid of losing their job, even though their students’ passing rate is only 8-20 percent.
Research findings
EFL Teachers’ Practices
Language skills
Results of EFL teachers’ practices are provided in Tables 2 to Table 5 using the COLT for analyzing communicative features. Productive skills such as speaking and writing of English apparently have been neglected in teachers’ classes in English language learning at the Academy (Table 2). This might have supported the idea of test impact since roughly half of the ECL test is devoted to reading and the other half is devoted to listening. The number of practices which were meant to be developing reading and listening skills was far greater than the number for other skills including speaking and writing. Regarding TOEFL preparation, speaking, listening, reading and writing skills were not integrated into Mary’s courses but focused on isolated language skill, specifically reading. She merely focused on the section of reading from TOEFL articles. However, a different approach was observed in Lee’s TOEFL classes to focus on 4 language skills. Though Lee felt he was not good in English writing, he still contributed to balance all skills for students. Lee used pre-reading or pre-listening questions to make students speak in a brief discussion. Students had to write down their opinions and arguments relevant to articles in reading or lecture in listening.
Academy’s Tina and Mary applied a teacher-centred approach utilizing Grammar-Translation method and Audiolinugal method for the dominion over students. Most of the time students sat in the classes and listened to teachers’ delivery of knowledge (50%-85%). The language learning was quite passive. When Tina and Mary completed their instruction, they gave the quizzes or mock tests (5%-32%). In contrast, Andy and Lee applied a student-centred approach. Students had more opportunities to practice the language use in classes. Communicative tasks divided students into pairs or groups (20%-40%). After the practice, the teacher asked some students to present their opinions in English (15%-25%). Therefore, Tina’s and Mary’s traditional teaching pattern was reviewing the test questions and then practicing the tests. Andy’s and Lee’s interactive teaching pattern included the pre-tasks for warm up, the introduction, major language learning tasks, and oral presentation.
Table 3. EFL teachers’ classroom practice pattern
Tasks and activities
Closer analyses of the results pertaining to activities and tasks used to develop language skills (Table 4) indicated some similarities between two teachers from the same school system and culture. In other words, Tina and Mary working for the Academy were quite similar to each other, and so were Andy and Lee. Since participating EFL teacher Tina and Mary used mainly translation method, students have not developed any advanced language skills. For example, students had no opportunities to learn how to read effectively to get the gist, and to learn how to read carefully to understand inference and intentions in the written passages via tasks of skimming or scanning. Actually, both Tina and Mary explained the superficial meanings of vocabulary, translated sentences, and lectured grammar (Tina 44% and Mary 42%). These cases where traditional teaching remained to be appeared may actually have been caused by their prior learning experience to be taught behaviourism-based syllabus which reinforced grammar points and sentence patterns. Communicative language skills were hardly developed in the test preparation courses, but its syllabus design stressed the passive acquisition of linguistic skill (Listening to recording practice 10-16%; Choral/Mechanical practice 5-10%; Introducing words and paraphrasing 10%). Overall, only limited types of classroom pedagogy were employed in exam classes.
What may strike the researchers most perhaps is there were reverse tendencies observed to the predictions of negative washback. For instance, Institute’s Andy and Lee spoke English more in their ECL and TOEFL preparation classes, whereas Academy’s Tina and Mary translated more frequently to their exam lessons. Except Lee’s and Andy’s students, other students did not sufficient target language listening spoken by their teachers, according to Table 9.5 the column Whole Language Spoken (15%, 32% vs. 0%, 1%). Whereas Tina and Mary taught ECL listening comprehension, they simply played the recording but not tried to speak English as their students wished. Another reverse tendency was that Andy and Lee paid the attention to students’ English pronunciation and corrected their utterance. They frequently asked students to read the scripts individually after they explained English conversations. Both Andy and Lee corrected students’ pronunciation as much as they could.
Indeed, it should further be noted that these EFL teachers, Tina and Mary, whose lessons seemed to be radically traditional, were teaching at the Academy which failed to monitor teachers’ progress and failed to provide teacher training. There were very few supporting resources for teacher development, as a result EFL teachers totally relied on what they had known and experienced 30 years ago. It was not surprised Academy’s EFL teachers became to use handy teaching pedagogy. The rest of time in classes was spent on drilling test-taking strategies. Teachers reviewed the tips for taking exams and practiced the tips (Tina’s and Mary’s 15-17% vs. Andy’s and Lee’s 0%), and then assessed test items. Both Academy and Institute had a tendency of mission-oriented to request students to pass the requirement of ECL tests. However, Academy’s teachers employed teaching to the test, but Institute’s teachers focused on the importance of knowledge.
Materials used and contents taught
Different teaching materials in Table 5 were used for corresponding to teachers’ practices in test preparation. For instance, Tina and Mary agreed with teaching to the test so that materials were mostly mock tests and retired tests. In English classes, they were highly dependent upon the reading textbooks. On the contrary, Andy and Lee preferred to use authentic materials to increase the value of communicative tasks. To balance language skills, they also used the comprehensive American Language Courses which consisted of speaking, listening, and reading sections. Especially, Andy acted as a nonconformist who was unconcerned about meeting school’s expectations to test score gains. He was to give more knowledge of learning strategies. Indeed, Andy and Lee were considered as avant-garde educators to teach interactively with students and made the school a better place for learning.
Evidence of EFL teachers’ beliefs influencing on practices
Teachers’ significant beliefs have been summarized from abundant descriptive data in Table 6 as reference to the influence on pedagogical decisions.
Influencing on language skills
From classroom observations during the academic years 2009-2010, Tina and Mary narrowly focused on the content and skill tested, and somehow Andy and Lee balanced their teaching with the whole curriculum and skill covered. There is a whole host of beliefs why traditional teachers have taught only few language skills. Mary believed it is impossible to learn all language skills at the same time, so students should only learn the isolated skill. Mary shared this belief with Tina who was firmly convinced “We don’t need to teach all four language skills to students (Mary’s Interview on Nov. 23, 2009.).” Mary emphasized her narrow teaching by replying “The students need to continue studying more English skills after they leave the college (Interviewed on Feb. 23, 2010).” Tina’s rationale for such isolated teaching includes “scoring on the exams has become the priority in language learning” and “their motivation was not high, and they did not want to study too hard (Interview of Jan. 15, 2010 with Tina).” She faced a lot of pressure to go “score gains.” As a result, the pedagogy only focused on reading and listening that were tested on the exam.
Nevertheless, the belief “students’ needs should be prioritized in teaching (Andy’s Interview on Jan. 10, 2010)” led to more fulfillments for students in classes to spark students’ interest and motivation. The case of Andy indicated only when a teacher prioritized students’ needs, and the teaching could be fruitful. For example, the design of ECL is to measure the test candidates’ listening and reading comprehension respectively. However, for the sake of students’ needs for communicative competence, Andy connected the reading skill with speaking and listening in ECL test preparation. Lee combined listening, speaking, and writing skills into the teaching of reading. More positive effects would be produced when the teaching has focused on students’ expectations. Lee’s Interviews gave the evidence why he taught all language skills. Lee strongly conceived that “teaching and learning should be comprehensive (Lee’s follow-up interview on March 29, 2010) and “students familiarize the format of ECL, but their proficiency is not improved (Lee’s Interview on Dec. 22, 2009).” Therefore, Lee believed students can learn more in given longer hours of English classes. He therefore has devoted to intensive language learning which was considered as the key for the success of a second or foreign language acquisition. Meanwhile, in the face of most EFL teachers teaching to the test everywhere, Andy’s “language skills should be inseparable (Andy’s Interview on Jan. 10, 2010)” still held a key place in his heart. He argued English teachers must go beyond the format of ECL for test preparation (Andy’s Interview on Nov. 13, 2009).
Influencing on teaching approaches
Tina was using word banks and grammar exercises consisting of retired international English language examinations such as ECL questions, because she felt “Knowing the rules of that language was the most effective way to learning English (Tina’s interview, October 15, 2009.)” This belief amplified ECL washback which measures candidates’ reading and listening abilities. Another example is Mary, who was using TOEFL iBT listening exercises in her exam classes, thought that “students will score higher if they memorize all kinds of test formats and topics.” As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, TOEFL iBT is changed to hope the innovation of English teaching toward skills integrated and communicative. However, with the rooted belief about memorization as the best effective way for learning, EFL teachers who provided the extended test questions for memorization seemed not to concern skills usable in real-life situations. Besides, the teaching with the focus on memorization was terribly boring. Students’ behaviours in learning were undisciplined. Nor could students concentrate on this kind of study. It was easier for students to cheating than to memorizing for the exams.
Influencing on tasks and activities
The way that Tina and Mary dealt with higher score gains was to provide the tests in their teaching. Both Tina and Mary were emphasizing test-taking strategies in order to a score jump. Students might not truly improve their proficiency for real language use, but they need to reach the score requirement for the overseas college enrollment. How to help students score higher became their primary job in teaching, and EFL teachers had to use exercises taken from past exam papers. Mary expressed on Nov. 20, 2009 “If we don’t concern the improvement of ECL scores we will miss the goal” and “My intuition told me not to waste time to drill my teaching.” Mary felt she was “ECLized” or “TOEFLized” for her teaching. While Mary was asked about her beliefs in teaching in the interview held in February 2010, she replied differently to her answers in November 2009. In an initial interview, she believed learning is to apply what they had learned and previous experience (Interviewed with Mary on Nov. 23, 2009).
On the contrary, Andy and Lee looked for learning strategies for each student. The belief “Learning strategies are more important than cramming strategies (November 13 2009)” made Andy and Lee abandon teaching to the test. They make sure students could make some progress by their own. “Students should know how to learn.” Andy replied on Jan. 10, 2010.
Though most teachers agreed with test-taking teaching for a quick score jump, Andy and Lee insisted in the cultivation of good knowledge learning habits. Students at the Institute were making gains in English because of the teaching that linked the teaching with other interesting topics and subjects. These teaching activities are based on the belief “Learning knowledge is greater than learning test-taking (Dec. 22, 2009)” so that teachers extended the learning beyond the test itself. In Lee’s beliefs, English teaching should be “enjoyable” and “useful” for students.
Lee expressed learning should be accompanied with achievement (Nov. 13, 2009). After a-20-year of learning, Lee realized that a great success in life comes from many small victories. A small achievement encouraged him to keep going, and sought for next achievement. These small achievements have formed his talent in language. Thus, Lee always gave the best quality of teaching for his students and hoped they always had a small progress on assessment tests. Students’ progress was the evidence of his contribution to teaching. He also realized that the teaching related to a student’s abilities and background could help bring about success in the classroom.
Influencing on materials used and contents taught
None of EFL teacher denied the importance of passing the exam with a flying color. Tina pointed out that “school authority judged the quality of teaching by student scoring reports. (Interview on Oct. 15, 2009)” She has to prepare more relevant testing materials in order to achieve students’ passing exam rate. Mary shared the similar view with Tina that “the pressure of the improvement of student achievement in the exams has made her to add more test contents in classes (Nov. 20, 2009).” The reason why Tina and Andy used the ECL test was they realized that ECL test having higher stakes in the military. Job opportunity, position promotion, and school graduation were based on the scores on the ECL test in this context. Tina expressed “my teaching is totally matched to the contents of the ECL test (Interview on Oct. 15, 2009).” She adapted her teaching to the ECL test in order to reflect the educational policies and authorities at the Academy. With the least possible delay, Tina carried these policies into effect because she said “I feel threatened if the superintendent asks for the improvement of students’ ECL scores” (interview on Jan. 15, 2010). Andy believed “ECL decides your destiny (Interviewed with Andy on Dec. 14, 2009)” In teaching ECL preparation, Andy preferred to used American Language Courses because of his overseas experience similar to the ALC contents (Andy’s Interview on Jan. 13, 2010). In contrast, Mary and Lee believed TOEFL iBT as high-stakes because students would have the opportunity to study abroad if they pass the requirement of college admissions in English language proficiency. Their practices were focusing on TOEFL test preparation.
Results indicated that teacher development and training helped teachers to study the test preparation curriculum and all courses materials well beyond the teaching to the test. Cases of Andy and Lee evidenced the necessity of teacher training to drill teaching techniques. The application of new teaching approaches closed achievement gaps whilst promoting students’ proficiency with a variety of topics.
Results indicated that school’s robotic test preparation program offered rigorous instruction. Cases of Andy and Lee from the Air Force Institute of Technology which strictly administrated the ECL and TOEFL test preparation performed rigorous in their teaching. Standards were given to teachers and were evaluated in the end of each test preparation program. Teachers made more efforts to help students’ success.
Results indicated that students’ needs were strongly associated with improvement on standardized language tests. Only when students realized their future needs and rewards for working places, they studied harder for the fulfillment. Institute’s trainees spent more time on test preparation than Academy’s cadets did.
Results indicated that teacher performance in teaching should be taken into account for teacher promotion. Institute’s instructor promotion was based on teacher performance and student achievement, but Academy’s teacher promotion was based on the number of papers published. Institute’s Andy and Lee could use strategies to help students to learn, but Academy’s Tina and Mary had nothing to do with the effectiveness of educating students.
Results indicated that Intensive test preparation is more effective than academic study program. Institute’s intensive test preparation enabled teachers to develop 4 skills, yet Academy’s semester test preparation could only focused on the test questions. More time is needed to schedule in the curriculum for effective test preparation.
Results indicated that the culture of “Imperial Examination System and Policy” exist in present context to increase exam-oriented instruction. The whole society which Tina, Mary, Andy and Lee lived in overwhelmingly used the scores. Test scoring remained the priority in EFL teachers’ instruction.
Results indicated that school hierarchical system increased negative attitudes to the test preparation. The decision to teach ECL in all military colleges led to EFL teachers’ severe negative attitudes. Likewise, the ways to teach test preparation might have led to cadets’ negative attitudes. The hierarchical relationships between school/teacher, and teacher/student were recognized as a clear social divide order which was as well-built as the Great Wall. Negative attitudes due to the centrality, domination, and power of teacher found in the Chinese classrooms
Results indicated that traditional tests have reinforced traditional teaching. When Tina and other participating teachers were young, they dealt with the traditional format of high school entrance exams, college entrance exams, and national public exams. Except Lee using communicative tasks for all language skills, most teachers tended to focus on linguistic knowledge and to prepare their students to accumulate the knowledge. The philosophy of traditional teaching was characterized by the demonstration of delivering knowledge. Teaching English had focused on academic study of grammar, literature, and in-depth analysis of literary texts. Teachers of English in military colleges preferred to ECL test preparation, instead of TOEFL test preparation. Students were asked to accumulate the knowledge by memorizing as much as possible.
Results indicated the contract of “Golden parachute” or so called “Iron Bowl” led to the residence of comfort zone in teaching. This kind of contract was controversial because of the protection for teachers against demotion, salary reductions, and other disciplines. The problem was apparent since Academy’s Tina and Mary have stayed in a comfort zone for a long time. They used the same teaching method and the same ALCPT test questions for teaching every year.
Results indicated that Confucian disciplines related to learning through memorization have hindered advanced language pedagogy. Chinese educational strategies are inclined toward memorization and grammar translation. In fact, the traditional teacher-dominated, knowledge-transmitting, and grammar-based pedagogy are still prevalent in ELT paradigms in Taiwan
Results indicated that lack of oversight of school’s teachers has lost school’s accountability. The quality of teaching was not reliable in schools Very often teachers’ personal needs go beyond students’ needs. The majority of college teachers pursues the promotion, rather than improves the instruction.
Results indicated that untrained EFL teachers tend to use the handy teaching methods including grammar-translation method and audiolingual method. For some reasons, Tina and Mary never attended the teacher education and training. This reflected a common phenomenon that only a small percentage of teacher are professionally qualified (Liu & Gong, 2000). They always used grammar-translation and audiolingualism in teaching. Insufficient discipline background to cause the resistance has prevented them from using other new teaching methods. Though they used the new language labs, their teaching remained traditionally. Untrained teachers typically wasted the equipment and facilities of the new labs which are designed to produce more positive learning.
Results indicated that Chinese students were traditionally passive learners. Retention, repetition, review, and reproduction were the process in learning. Meticulous thinking, memorization, and mastery of rote knowledge were primarily used for the smallest detail of knowledge. Chinese students’ traditional attitudes made them passive in learning, instead of the application of higher order cognitive skills in language use.
Tracing back the traditional view of washback claimed by Alderson & Wall (1993), they proposed that the introduction of any test would necessarily lead to a washback effect, which might be negative or positive effects. From this view came the concept of washback validity (Morrow, 1986) and Working for Washback (Hughes, 1989). However, the findings of observational and interview data of present study were not characteristic of this traditional model of washback. Some EFL teachers involved in this study did not all respond to international English language examinations used in the schools and did not all respond in the same way in their practice. Through a qualitative analysis, it was found that teachers’ responses to the introduction of an international English examination have revealed the specific patterns in their own instructional behaviours. Whereas the limited range of evidence, it would be possible to reformulate Alderson and Wall’s (1993, p. 120-121) Washback Hypotheses in perspective of teaching.
They assume “A test will influence teaching” but the present research found that not any test will influence on teaching. It is only when the test is also high-stakes for certain teachers and at the same time those teachers are capable of teaching. Thus, it should be “The test will influence teaching, if that test is high-stakes for capable teachers.”
They assume “A test will influence what teachers teach” but the present research found that not any test will influence what teachers teach. It is only when that test is accepted by teachers and then they will change the materials to be taught. Thus, it should be “The test will influence what teachers teach, if that test is accepted by teachers.”
They assume “A test will influence how teachers teach” but the present research found that not any test will influence how teacher teach. It is only when that test’s theory is well known to and practiced by those teachers. Teachers will not change the way of teaching if they are not capable of new teaching. Thus, it should be “The test will influence how teachers teach, if teachers are capable of using relevant teaching approaches.”
They assume “A test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching” but the present research found that not any test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching. It is only when the authority concern that test, and in turn teachers begin to adjust the rate and sequence of teaching. Thus, it should be “The test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching, if monitored by the authority.”
They assume “A test will influence the degree and depth of teaching” but the present research found that not any test will influence the degree and depth of teaching. It is only when the authority concern that test, and in turn teachers begin to adjust the degree and depth of teaching. The more concerns the authority, the deeper the teaching. Thus, it should be “The test will influence the degree and depth of teaching, if monitored by the authority.”
They assume “A test will influence the attitudes to content, method, etc. of teaching and learning” but the present research found that not any test will influence teachers’ attitudes to content and method of teaching. It is only when that test is accepted by teachers and then they will try to understand the content of that test and the method used for the teaching. Thus, it should be “The test will influence teachers’ attitudes to content, method of teaching, if that test is accepted by teachers.”
They assume “Tests that have important consequences will have washback” but the present research found that not all tests with important consequences will have washback. Even though tests may have important consequences to students, it is not necessary to have washabck if teachers do not think so. It is only when tests have important consequences to both teachers and students at the same time will have washback. Thus, it should be “Tests that have important consequences to teachers and students will have washback.”
They assume “Tests that do not have important consequences will have no washback” but the present research found it is not always true. For instance, the IELTS exam may not have important consequences but this testing system is similar to the TOEFL iBT exam, so some teachers will use the IELTS into teaching and learning. Thus, it should be “Tests that do not have important consequences and those tests are not related to each other will have no washback.”
They assume “Tests will have washback on all teachers and learners” but the present research found that not all test will have washback on all teachers. It is only when teachers have to deal with those tests and will be influenced by those tests. Thus, it should be “Tests will have washback on teachers who deal with those tests.”
They assume “Tests will have washback effects for some teachers and some learners, but not for others” but the present research found that not all predicted types of washback are shown in a context. If the context has lacked of teacher development programs, there will be less positive washback but more negative washback effects. Thus, it should be “Tests will have more negative washback effects for some teachers, if the context has lacked of teacher development programs, vice versa.”
REFERENCE
[1]Alderson, J. C. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), p.280-297.
[2]Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), p.115-129.
[3]Allen, P., Frohlich, M. & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of second language teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem Washington , D.C.
[4]Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford : Oxford University
[5]Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of a washback concept in Language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), p.280-297.
[6]Borg, M. (2001). Teachers' beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), p.186-87.
[7]Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong . Language and Education, 11 (1), p.38-54.
[8]Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: Washback on teacher perceptions and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15 (3), p.253-71.
[9]Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), p.47-65.
[10]Freeman, D. (1992). Language teacher education, emerging discourse, and change in classroom practice. In Flowerdew, J., Brock, M., & Hsia, S. (Eds.) Perspectives in second language teacher education. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong .
[11]Green, B. A. and Andrade, M. S. (2010). Guiding principles for language assessment reform: A model for collaboration. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Article in press, p.1-13.
[12]Harvey, P. (1985). A lesson to be learned: Chinese approaches to language learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 39, p.183-186.
[13]Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18 (4), p. 333-340.
[14]Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China
[15]Hughes, A. (1988). Introducing a needs-based test of English language proficiency into an English medium university in Turkey London
[16]Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge : Cambridge University
[17]Johnson, K. 1992. The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practice during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour; 24, p. 83-1 08.
[18]Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(4), p.439-452.
[19]Johnson, R. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston , MA
[20]Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational psychologist, 27 (1), p.65-90.
[21]Liang, S. (1991). Teacher education in the Republic of China on Taiwan
[22]Liu, D. Y., & Gong, Y. F. (2000). Secondary teachers of English education. Paper presented at the international symposium on 21st Century Foreign Language Education in Schools held in Oct. 2000, Beijing
[23]Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, p.317-328. Ministry of Education (Taiwan
[24]Ministry of Education (Taiwan
[25]Ministry of Education (Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan
[26]Morrow (1979, 1986), Morrow, K. (1986) ‘The evaluation of tests of communicative performance’. In Portal, M., (Eds.) Innovations in Language Testing. London
[27]Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 62. p.307-322.
[28]Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park
[29]Peacock, M. (1998). Exploring the gap between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about ‘useful’ activities for EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), p.233-250.
[30]Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers' beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 9(2), p.177-95.
[31]Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, p.679-682.
[32]Qi, L. (2004). Has a high-stakes test produced the intended changes? In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe and A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods, p.171-190. New Jersey : Lawrence
[33]Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students' perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30(1), p. 85-105.
[34]Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge : Cambridge University
[35]Shih, C. M. (2009). How tests change teaching: A model for reference. English teaching: Practice and Crtique, 8(2), p.188-206.
[36]Shohamy, E., (1993). The power of tests: the impact of language tests on teaching and learning (NFLC occasional papers). The National Foreign Language Center , Washington
[37]Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Pearson Education Limited.
[38]Shohamy, E. Donitsa-Schmidt, S. and Ferman, I. (1996) Test impact revisited: washback effect over time, Language Testing, 13, p.298-317.
[39]Song, X. and Cheng, L. (2006). Language learner strategy use and test performance of Chinese learners of English. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(3), p.241–66.
[40]Tardy, C. M., & Snyder, B. (2004). 'That's why I do it': Flow and EFL teachers' practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), p.119-128.
[41]Tsagari, D. (2007): Review of washback in language testing: How has been done? What more needs doing? Washington DC
[42]Urmston, A. (2003). Learning to teach English in Hong Kong : The opinions of teachers in training. Language and Education, 17(2), p.112-37.
[43]Volante L. (2004). Teaching To the Test: What Every Educator and Policy-maker Should Know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #35, September 25, 2004.
[44]Wall, D. & Alderson, J. C. (1992). Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study. ED 345512.
[45]Watanabe. Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13 (3), p.318-333.
[46]Watanabe, Y. (2004). Teacher factors mediating washback. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe and A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods, p. 129-146. New Jersey : Lawrence
[47]Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. London
[48]Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China
[49]Zeng, Y. (2002). Self-confidence and language test performance. Modern Foreign Languages, 25(2), p.204–09
沒有留言:
張貼留言