'Washback' (sometimes also known as 'backwash') is the influence that writers on language testing, syllabus design and language teaching believe a test will have on the teaching that precedes it. Much has been written about the influence of testing on teaching. To date, however, little empirical evidence is available to support the assertions of either positive or negative washback. The English proficiency test TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language: ETS) is among the best-known examinations in the field of ELT. The study reported in this article set out to investigate common claims that the TOEFL exerts an undesirable influence on language teaching. Our data consist of interviews with teachers and students, and observations made of two sorts of classes: 'normal' language proficiency classes, and parallel classes intended for students preparing to take the TOEFL. We observed both TOEFL preparation classes and non-TOEFL preparation classes by the same teachers in order to be able to separate washback from the TOEFL from any possible effect of individual teacher style. This study leads us to suggest that simple forms of washback hypotheses are too naive: influences on what happens in class are much more complex than unexamined beliefs about washback allow. The results of the study suggest the need for more complex hypotheses about washback.

No abstract

Unlike success in first language acquisition, success in learning a second or foreign language is considerably more variable. Recently, second language acquisition researchers have called for more integrative research on individual difference factors. With this goal in mind, this study followed a larger, quantitative study of the links between self-directedness for language learning and English language learning attainment among university students on the Chinese mainland and in Hong Kong. Drawing on the findings of that study (Gan, 2003), this 1-semester study looked closely at 2 small groups of tertiary-level English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in China in order to document how they carried out their out-of-class (self-directed) English learning, as well as to elaborate issues that may be critical to understanding the variability that had already been observed in their English learning outcomes.The data were gathered through interviews, diaries, and follow-up email correspondence with 9 successful and 9 unsuccessful second-year EFL students at 2 Chinese mainland universities. Using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 6 categories of qualitative data were constructed: conceptualizing English language learning; perceptions of the College English Course; learning and practising strategies; self-management; internal drive; and English proficiency tests. The study findings suggest that different levels of success may be explained by a complex and dynamic interplay of internal cognition and emotion, external incentives, and social context. The findings imply the need to take a holistic view of variation in language learning outcomes and to broaden the scope of the current practice in learner strategy training.INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE DIFFERENCES between successful and unsuccessful learners in the field of second and foreign language learning attracted attention with the studies of Rubin (1975), Stern (1975), and Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978, which aimed to establish what good language learning strategies might be and to share them with unsuccessful learners. Continuing these initial investigations, various other researchers explored the relationships be-tween reported strategy use and language learning outcomes in the hope of identifying the range and nature of learning strategies employed by good, successful, or effective language learners, with good, successful, or effective generally understood to mean those learners who perform well on tests or examinations, or who are rated as such by their teachers (

No abstract