Teacher’s psychological beliefs and contextual factors influencing EFL teacher decision-making: Case study of a college teacher in
Tieh-Chung Yang1 & Mark Priestley2
1Air
Abstract
The present study aims to investigate the crucial role of washback and other possible causal factors mediating teacher decision making in the context of major international standardized English test systems in
Key words: English teaching, Teacher beliefs, Social factors, Washback
“The washback model predicts that tests may affect the goals that participants set for themselves in their learning and teaching … washback is experienced differently by participants in different contexts and with different beliefs about testing and its relation to learning (Green, 2007, p. 71).”
Socialized teacher decision-making
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relative weights of washback effects, teachers’ beliefs and contextual factors on teachers’ instructional decision-making. It aims to counterbalance the previously unbalanced research of washback that over-emphasizes on the concerns of testing in relation to teaching practice and learning outcomes in schools. This topic has argued the widespread conception on washback in the English language teaching community through the empirical data to elicit rethinking the theory of washback. The research of washback has long been ignored the complex social reality of the setting, but assumed that testing is one-dimensional manipulation. However, teaching practice in fact is always dynamic with the contextual factors in which environmental characteristics and personal beliefs prioritize the timely actions. Research analysis therefore is to focus on the role of individual teacher and contextual factors by using an in-depth case study. The qualitative research methods employing teacher interviews and classroom observations will obtain thorough understanding of teacher’s insights on teaching and classroom practices conducted in English courses.
The present study focuses on the ecology of teaching which heavily focuses on the outcomes of achievement test, namely the ideas of using test-standards to promote teaching quality, within the field of English teaching.
To explore the contextual factors, the issues of washback having far-reaching effects affecting teachers’ decision-making in
Problems of teaching to the test in
Practically,
The movement of rigorous standards with achievement measured through testing has triggered the greatest debate on the path of education reforms in
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).
Examinations remain to play an important role in the whole education and the whole curriculum. For instance, the MOE has utilized a multi-channel college/university admission system for senior high school students. The channels include school recommendation, individual application and examination and placement. However, this latest education reform offers only a small number of students through school recommendation and candidates’ application but it still undergoes the current system of entrance examinations as a major criterion to make school admissions fairer. The majority of high school students must take an entrance exam set by the College and University Entrance Examination Centre. Meanwhile, the MOE has launched a series of policies regarding higher language proficiency for quality enhancement of higher education. In the Enhancing Global Competitiveness Plan 2003, the aim is to foster students’ foreign language capacity. Colleges and universities have adapted international standardized language assessments as yardsticks to measure academic performance. In other words, outcomes on achievement tests represent students’ learning. In English teaching, the educational reform movement in
A second dimension of the debate is specific to the assessment in terms of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced paradigms. Norm-referenced tests are designed to examine individual performance in relation to the performance of a representative group. From the past to the present, all public examinations in
Criterion-referenced tests document individual performance in relation to a specific set of skills. Knowledge of an individual’s performance on a criterion-referenced assessment provides explicit information as to what a student can or cannot do, thereby providing an index of competence that is independent of the performance of others. Kelly (1978) argued that applied linguists should be more interested in the development and measurement of ability to take part in specified communicative performance, the production of and comprehension of coherent discourse, rather than in linguistic competence. This echoed Spolsky’s (1968) earlier point that perhaps instead of attempting to establish a person’s knowledge of a language in terms of a percentage mastery of grammar and lexis, we would be better employed in testing that person’s ability to perform in a specified socio-linguistic setting. Today, most international standardized English language tests are based on the criterion-referenced measure.
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
Theoretical framework
Washback has been shown to be not the sole factor influencing teaching. Consequential tests do not necessarily guarantee the intended effects for language teaching and learning, if the role of teacher has not been taken into account in the use of test for instruction. The previously unbalanced washaback studies had overemphasized the effects of testing on teaching (Alderson & Hamp-Lyons, 1996; Alderson & Wall, 1993; Andrews, Fullilove & Wong, 2002; Messick, 1996; Morrow, 1986; Shohamy et. al., 1996; Wall, 1996; Watanabe, 1996). Successful teaching change is influenced by personal beliefs and contextual factors, as well test design (Smith, 1996). Bailey (1996) suggested that teachers as the participant and their teaching as the process that might be affected by an examination have long been ignored in the research of washback. We can no longer take teachers’ classroom practice for granted, rather their 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 (Borg, 2006; 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. Contextual factors have dynamically interacted with one another to influence the decision-making that teachers apply to their instruction. For instance, communicative testing has in recent years become a fashionable term to the ESL (English as a second language) areas, but to a lesser extent in the EFL (English as a foreign language) areas. Students living in ESL countries have more opportunities to speak and use English than EFL students. Grammar-based testing has been responsive to these boundaries and is widely used by EFL teachers. 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. 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. 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. It is suggested to clarify the characteristics of each factor, the applied context of the factors, and the intertwined relationships among a variety of factors. Researchers and educators should consider various contextual factors surrounding the teacher in order to use the test to change the teaching. Therefore, tests should be integrated an educational system to try to demonstrate that the introduction of such tests improves learning (Shohamy, 2001). Furthermore, Alderson & Wall (1993) argued that there might be other factors at work, in addition to the design of a test that could influence the presence or absence of washback. Several studies have indicated that washback research must ultimately relate to the learning context. Alderson & Hamp-Lyons (1995) point out it is important to investigate why “tests have different amounts and types of washback on some teachers and learners than on other teachers and learners.” Tsagari (2007) specifies that Alderson & Hamp-Lyons (1996) concluded by stressing that researchers who wish to investigate washback need to take account of the educational context as well as the nature of the test. The investigation of contextual factors is important to understand why some assessment tests have been exerted differently, success or failure, in different schools. The present research assumes that actual classroom practice is influenced not only by teacher capacity in using English teaching methods and the types of assessment tests, but also by teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning, and contextual factors surrounding teachers such as traditions of teaching, education policy, teaching resources, etc.
The study
The present study will assess the relative weight of these factors and evaluate the extent to which washback is indeed the most significant factor as stressed in previous research. It aims to investigate the crucial role of washback and other possible causal factors mediating teachers’ instructional behaviours in the context of major international standardized English test systems in
Research questions
The aim of research analysis therefore is to focus on the role of individual teacher and contextual factors by using an in-depth case study. The qualitative research methods employing teacher interviews and classroom observations will obtain thorough understanding of teacher’s insights on teaching and classroom practices conducted in English courses. The findings of the present research can provide educational practitioners and applied linguists with suggestions about how teacher beliefs and contextual factors interact with one another to affect the practice and test preparation for students, as well as suggestions about using alternative perspectives to implement curriculum innovations through testing in educational systems. This approach would require research questions to:
1. Identify the relevant belief sets for an English teacher about teaching, assessment and the impact of the latter on the former.
2. Establish whether there is a correspondence between beliefs and classroom practices.
3. Infer what psychological and contextual factors in association with stated beliefs and proceeded practices.
A naturalistic case study will be employed to explore the dynamic nature of the development of EFL teacher beliefs towards English language teaching and learning, and the actual teaching practices within a college in
Data Collection
Research Methods and Instruments: This study is to use a variety of methods to explore teacher’s current teaching and beliefs. In observation, each classroom is observed for one hour one lesson a month, making a total of 6 lesson observations. Methods used allow me to observe each classroom over an extended period of time and to observe lessons on different topics to know what is going on in the classrooms. On the one hand, an important criticism is that reliance on a particular method can result in a biased analysis. Therefore, based on Fraenkel & Wallen (2003), Lincoln & Guba (1985), and Patton (1990) a triangulation of data collection will be employed to gather and compare information about the participant’s beliefs at each stage. On the other hand, multiple sources provide the richness of the data and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question (Silverman, 2001). In this case study, triangulation in the qualitative approach is adding to the richness of present data. Giddens (1984) points out that the researcher should engage in “double hermeneutics” which rehabilitates subjectivity and views data collection as a mutual construction of meaning. The role of the researcher is not a passive information receiver, but an active interpreter to understand positions that the subject in relation to the phenomenon and to activate the responses judged appropriate through the experiences of the subject.
Classroom Observations
Observation will be used as an investigation process for this exploratory study. Robson (1993) points out that “As the actions and behaviour of people are a central aspect in virtually any enquiry, a natural and obvious technique is to watch what they do, to record this in some way and then to describe, analyse and interpret that we have observed (p. 190). The rationale of using observations includes: (1) allow the researcher to gather ‘live’ data from naturally happenings, (2) enable the researcher to have a reality check, (3) can offer an insight into everyday behaviours, relationships, teaching practices, interactions, physical construction of institutions, and contextual situations (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The use of observation is to find out teachers’ behaviours which will be compared with teachers’ beliefs collected in previous interviews. Meanwhile, the problematic interrelationships among curriculum, instruction and assessment will be verified through practice observed.
Unit of Analysis: As noted in the Second Language Classrooms: Research on teaching and learning, Chaudron (1988, p. 180) claimed that units of observation were often unreported and led to the distorted results. Therefore, to have an appropriate measure, an episode, the basic unit of analysis in classroom observation, is operationally defined to count the frequency with which different kinds of behaviours are observed in the classroom. Constituent episodes occur within each activity (e.g., drill, translation, discussion, game, and so on). For example, teacher introduces dialogue, teacher reads dialogue aloud, and students repeat dialogue parts after teacher (three episodes of one activity).
Teacher Interviews
Classroom observation can provide the data of teaching practice, but cannot provide the understanding of teacher beliefs. So, I must conduct many interviews to capture the critical beliefs in language teaching and learning. Semi-structured interviews conducted in Chinese language so that this informant is able to express her ideas fully. Each interview lasting between 40 and 60 minutes can offer an insight into respondent’s knowledge of thoughts, explanations of individual behaviours, as well as descriptions of current problems and aspirations. The present study is based on what I have found in classroom observations and have following-up thematic interviews with this full-time experienced EFL teacher to explore “EFL teacher beliefs on English language teaching and learning” and the issue relevant to washback to explore “EFL teacher beliefs toward current standardized language proficiency assessments in the classes” by eliciting respondent’s experiences and perceptions. Follow-up interviews (Discussions) will have an opportunity to know teacher’s further explanation and elaboration on her beliefs that are revealed in the previous interviews (Mangubhai, et. al., 2005). In addition, I will use the incidents observed in the classrooms to stimulate recall and discussion about approaches to teaching. The interviews will be tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. To reduce my workload, I will operate by producing abridged summaries of each case drawing on the interview data, and then work from these.
Research findings
Mary’s Narrative Beliefs about English Teaching and her classroom practices:
Mary’s concepts of English teaching and learning which might gain the increasing weight in her beliefs are primarily derived from the experience when she was taught for the preparation of the University Entrance Examinations, from the knowledge that she learned in TESOL programs, and from the context where she worked for decades. For Mary, English language learning is
“心理層面來說，動機在學習英文上一直都扮演關鍵的角色。我們應該盡可能地去發現如何提升學生的學習動機。例如我發現軍校生會更用功，如果老師提供獎賞或獎學金。我相信學生會想把英文學好如果學校上級長官提供獎金給通過英文測驗的人。我建議軍官具英文證照應給予較高之薪水及升遷。否則，軍校生不會學好英文，如果軍官英文好與不好發展並無差別。沒人會多付出如果沒有獎勵。
Psychologically, motivation always has played a key role in English learning. We should find out how we can do to enhance students’ motivation. For instance, I found that our cadets can work harder if their progress can be recognized by the teachers who use rewards and scholarships for encouragement. I believe students would like to learn English well if the school could give the monetary rewards to those who pass the examinations. I also suggest that military officers who have the English certificates will have a higher pay and get a promotion. Otherwise, cadets would not like to learn English well if they know there is no difference between officers who excel in English and officers who are poor in English. No one wants to study harder if there is no reward.” (Mary’s Interview on Nov. 20, 2009)
Mary’s teaching experience at the Academy has reflected the needs to add some stakes to cadets’ English learning. She believed that high-stakes attached to the test are necessary in order to encourage students to learn. The main issue of students’ language learning that Mary argued was the low motivation. She therefore used various awards and rewards for students who have made a progress. This concept of language learning was consistent to her attitude to the study in her life. She valued whether there is a balance between her effort and the prize. For Mary, a higher pay could become the spring of hope to inspire her pursue the goal, if not it would be the winter of despair to stop her to work harder. Hence, Mary believed a good teacher should strive for the enhancement of motivation with proper rewards for students to learn better in the classroom.
The way of her belief toward learning was similar to traditional Chinese education where the masters always required their students to memorize classic books and poetry as much as possible. Mary reinforced her argument by extracting a common childhood experience of all Chinese children
“小時後我們不也背古文，長大後自己就理解了嗎？
When we were young we all memorized famous classic poets. After we had grown up we used them naturally, right?”
(Mary’s Interview on Nov. 20, 2009)
This view of learning a language is saying that understanding is not essential in the beginning of language learning, and students can learn a language well if they can do like a parrot to imitate. Trying to memorize linguistic knowledge as much as possible has been regarded as a life skill of learning language. The total responsibility of teachers is to facilitate students’ memorization through spoon-feeding teaching method. Students are treated as a duck to be given spoonful food again and again until duck’s stomach is full of food for a quick growth. This teaching method is so called Filling-Duck pedagogy (填鴨式教學) in Chinese society. Although Mary suffered by cramming method of teaching given more subject matter knowledge than students could receive in her early learning experience, she somewhat believed it was a good approach to master a language. Mary expressed
“英文背多了自然就會用。
When students memorize enough English sentences and they will be able to use them naturally.” (Mary’s Interview on Nov. 23, 2009.)
It has been seen though Mary was trained in a TESOL program, her rooted beliefs about language learning were not easily changed. Her beliefs about teaching and learning remained tainted in spite of conducting ELT studies and attending numerous conferences and TESOL programs. Therefore, it could not be avoided that her later statements contradicted her initial beliefs. 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. Her beliefs were consistent with the classroom practice, and observations indicated she employed the Grammar Approach to explain the rules. The observation data show:
“T: 要注意第三段第一句的片語.告訴我是甚麼? 第一句的片語.
T: 林**好了, 告訴我第一句的片語是甚麼?
S: interested
T: 對, be interested in. 對不對? be interested in. 對不對? 好, 是有興趣.
T: 那如果說是…音樂對我…我對音樂…嗯, 音樂吸收引我.要怎麼說?那你怎麼講?
T: 另外一個單字是interesting.
T: interesting後面接甚麼?
S: to
T: 對, to. 如果是interesting後面接to.
T: Okay, 音樂對我來說…interested in是一個事件.
T: to是指人. 音樂對我是Music is interesting to me. 對, 音樂對我來說是蠻有趣的.
T: Okay, 一個是in一個是to. 不同的喔.
(Translated)
T: Pay attention to the phrase in the first sentence of third paragraph. Tell me. What is it? The phrase is in the first sentence.
T: Lin**, tell me. What is the phrase in the first sentence?
S: interested
T: Correct, be interested in, right? be interested in, right? Okay, it is be interested in.
T: If we say…music to me… I to music…mm, 音樂吸收引我. How do you say in English? How you say that?
T: Another word is interesting.
T: What you should add after interesting?
S: to
T: Correct, to. If you use interesting should use to.
T: Okay, to me music is…interested in is an event.
T: to is person. Translate音樂對我是is Music is interesting to me. Right, Music is interesting to me.
T: Okay, one is in, the other is to. The way to use it is different.
Mary admitted that her actual lessons were contradictory what she said in the interview to balance 4 skills, but she followed the emphases of ECL tests on the test-takers’ basic reading and listening ability. She did not add any speaking and writing skills that were not tested in the ECL test.
Contradicting with her earlier statements, Mary believed that the teaching should create opportunities for student to apply their prior knowledge. She said “it is like a snowing ball falling from the top of mountains and this snowing ball will become bigger and bigger if students could apply what they had learned and previous experience (Interview in February 2010).” Students would be required to take part in role-play in lessons and to discuss the topics that teacher gave. The role of the teacher was as a facilitator or negotiator to help students to learn. Teachers should offer more opportunities for students to express their opinions. However, whether she adopted a student-centred or a teacher-centred approach in the classroom was dependent upon students’ responses. According to Mary’s narratives, if she felt that students accepted her delivery, she would employ a teacher-centred pedagogy in class. Nevertheless, if students became dull, she would move to the student-centred process. The teaching should be flexible that Mary defined.
Constrained to the characteristics of a wide range of student proficiency levels, Mary could only choose to take care of students at an upper-intermediate level. She believed these smarter students surely could learn English much better than those dummier students in English learning. She sometimes felt that she did not provide sufficient materials for her upper students. Thus, it illustrated Mary’s belief “畢業後個人再進修。The students need to continue studying more English after they leave the college (Interviewed on Feb. 23, 2010).” In Mary’s opinion, this was due to the fact that students were taught to understand the limited materials without national standards. Students themselves have to study somewhere outside of the school if they want to raise their levels. Mary implied the importance of the development of autonomy for students in her teaching. She deeply hoped that her students had the ability to learn English by themselves out off campus. If it was true, Mary should conduct more student-centered teaching in order for students to practice their cognition. However, her teaching was superficial change and remained on the translation. The classroom observations indicated students passively received the instruction in Mary’s reading classes,. The translation method of teaching in reading did not train students to be able to assess or look for clues that indicate the kind of writing the student is encountering. Students in such classes did not critically think about the title, font, and format of the reading material. They have to look for whether words were used appropriately. It is important that the student be an active reader, but teaching syntax through reading could be dull and unimaginative. Neither did they have a chance to practice their English. Productive skills including speaking and writing were neglected in all semesters.
In reading classes, the teaching activity only involved
l Step 1. Mary and students read aloud.
l Step 2. Mary presented and translated reading passages.
l Step 3. Mary picked students to answer the questions.
l Step 4. Mary asked students to underline the foci.
l Step 5. Students and Mary read aloud the next paragraph together. The teaching pattern was recycled.
In listening classes, the tasks included multiple choice to choose the answer A, B, C, or D. The typical activity in listening classes was
l Step 1. Mary played the recordings.
l Step 2. Mary showed the multiple choice items and the scripts.
l Step 3. Mary picked a student to answer.
l Step 4. The students gave the answers.
l Step 5. Mary showed the answers.
l Step 6. Mary went on the next question.
Mary dwelled on instruction with a large amount of teacher talk, often using Mandarin (L1). Students answered questions on their own, and very often the teacher picked up a student to answer. Mary’s reading and listening lessons were strongly influenced by Mary’s prior learning experience, which she was taught traditionally to focus on introducing the vocabulary and grammar. The narrowed curriculum was used for cadets’ English learning.
Discussions and conclusions
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.”
The conclusions of the present study:
1. The beliefs in a teacher’s mind will reflect accurately to the instructional behaviours, unless the belief found is a false one. Teacher beliefs will be involved in mediating the process of instruction coming into the classroom. Negative beliefs on and negative attitude to the language examination may produce more resistance in accepting that examination. Positive beliefs on and positive attitude to the language examination may facilitate the use of that examination.
2. Classroom practices are more complex, because there are various reasons behind what teachers are doing. Teaching to the test may not necessarily have to deal with the examination, but due to the limited knowledge in teaching methods. The ways of teaching could be due to teachers’ earlier learning experience.
3. Different international English language examinations have exerted the different levels of washback effects. Top-down policies play an important role to influence teachers’ beliefs and practices in the range of influence of a test. A good language examination such as TOEFL iBT is not necessarily acceptable to all EFL teachers, because it could be due to the levels of high-stakes to students or the levels of importance to the teachers.
4. School systems and cultures may profoundly be involved as a mediating factor in the process of instruction. The lack of supervision on teacher progress may hinder the positive washback effects. The lack of teacher development may have limited teachers to keep pressing forward to learn how to improve students’ authentic language skills. EFL teachers’ practices tended to use very few types of teaching patterns in an ineffective schooling system.
Reference:
Alderson, J. C. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of
washback. Language Testing, 13(3), p.280-297.
Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), p.115-129.
Andrews, S. Fullilove, J. & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback – A case study.
System 30, p.207-223.
Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of a washback concept in
Language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), p.280-297.
Borg, M. (2001). Teachers' beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), p.186-87.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38(1), p.47-65.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in
education.
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
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Green, A. (2007). IELTS Washback in Context: Preparation for academic writing in
higher education.
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.
Johnson, R. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs.
Educational psychologist, 27 (1), p.65-90.
Kelly, A. V. (2004). The curriculum theory and practice (Fifth Ed.).
Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A. and Son, Jeong-Bae (2005). Similarities
and differences in teachers' and researchers' conceptions of communicative language teaching: Does the use of an educational model cast a better light? Language Teaching Research, 9(1), p.31-66.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Messick, S., 1996. Validity and washback in language testing.
Language Testing 13 (3), p.241-256.
Morrow, K. (1986) ‘The evaluation of tests of communicative performance’.
In Portal, M., (Eds.) Innovations in Language Testing.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 19, p.317-328.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 62. p.307-322.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
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.
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers' beliefs about second language
learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), p.177-95.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching.
Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research: a resource for social scientists and
practitioner-researchers.
Shohamy, E., (1993). The power of tests: the impact of language tests on teaching
and learning (NFLC occasional papers). The National Foreign
Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Ferman,
Shohamy, E. (2001). The Power of Tests.
Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: methods for analysing talk, text
and interaction.
Smith, D. B. (1996). Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. A.
Freeman, & J. C. Richards (Eds.)Teacher learning in language teaching.
Spolsky, B. (1968). Language testing-The problem of validation. TESOL Quarterly, 2 (2), p.84-94.
Stake, R.E. (2000). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of
Qualitative Research.
Stark, S. & Torrance, H. (2005) Case Study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (eds.),
Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
Tardy, C. M., & Snyder, B. (2004). 'That's why I do it': Flow and EFL teachers' practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), p.119-128.
Tsagari, D. (2007): Review of washback in language testing: How has been done?
What more needs doing?
Urmston, A. (2003). Learning to teach English in
teachers in training. Language and Education, 17(2), p. 112-37.
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.
Wall, D., 1996. Introducing new tests into traditional systems: insights from general
education and from innovation theory. Language Testing 13 (3), p.334-354.
Watanabe. Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13 (3) 318-333.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing.
