A Critical Review of Washback Studies: Hypothesis and Evidence

Wei, Wei

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32601-6_4

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When income inequality is high, students may realize by themselves the critical importance of academic competition, or— perhaps more plausibly—their family members might change their emphasis, discourse, and/or socialization practices to stress the importance of getting ahead of the academic competition (for work showing how income inequality affects parenting style, see Doepke & Zilibotti, 2019). It is also possible that school staff and, in particular, teachers (the main agents of school systems) may adopt normative assessment practices rather than cooperative learning practices (e.g., using reward focused on individual outcomes rather than team efforts) because they feel it will help their students succeed in high-stake tests, and reach the highest possible rung of the social ladder (for a review on teachers as institutional gatekeepers, see Butera et al, 2021, for a review on the effect of high-stake testing on teaching, see Wei, 2017). Importantly, these practices go hand in hand with encouraging (or emphasizing) social comparison, relative performance, and individual achievement (for a review on classroom goal structure, see Meece et al, 2006), which are noticed by students and shape their motivations (Bardach et al, 2020, 2021).…”

Section: Competitiveness and Cooperativeness At Schoolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income inequality predicts competitiveness and cooperativeness at school.

Sommet¹,

Weissman²,

Elliot³

2022

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competitiveness and cooperativeness are important predictors of social and learning outcomes at school. Drawing on evidence suggesting that contexts with high income inequality foster an ethos of competitiveness and inhibit cooperativeness in the economic environment, we examine whether income inequality is also associated with more competitiveness and less cooperativeness in the academic environment. We conducted four preregistered studies to test this idea. In Study 1, analysis of the OECD PISA 2018 data set (%500,000 15-year-old students from 75 countries) revealed that students from economically unequal countries perceive their schoolmates as more competitive and less cooperative. In Study 2a and 2b, analysis of the PISA 2003 (250,000þ students from 38 countries) and PISA 2000 (75,000þ students from 32 countries) data sets revealed that students from unequal countries are themselves more competitive and, surprisingly, also more cooperative. Follow-up analyses resolved this apparent paradox, showing that students from unequal countries are oriented toward instrumental rather than intrinsic cooperativeness (i.e., using cooperation as a strategic tool to achieve academic success rather than for the enjoyment of the activity itself). Study 3 offers a conceptual experimental replication (%850 young adults imagining going back to school) and indicates that induced income inequality (a) increases perceived competitiveness, (b) decreases perceived cooperativeness, (c) prompts an orientation toward competitiveness, and (d) prompts an orientation toward instrumental rather than intrinsic cooperativeness. Results are discussed in relation to the multidisciplinary literatures on the psychology of income inequality, the selective function of school systems, coopetition, self-determination, and cooperative learning. Educational Impact and Implications StatementIndividuals residing in places with high income inequality have been shown to compete more fiercely for status and cooperate less. In this research, we examine whether this phenomenon also applies to students at school. Analyses of three OECD PISA data sets (%850,000 students from a total of 75þ countries observed in 2018, 2003, and 2000) show that 15-year-old students from economically unequal countries (a) perceive their schoolmates as more competitive and less cooperative and (b) are more competitive and more strategically cooperative (i.e., they use cooperation as a tool to achieve academic success). An experiment manipulating income inequality (%850 young adults) led to the same conclusions. Taken together, our results suggest that income inequality fosters an ethos of competitiveness among the workforce of tomorrow.

show abstract

Section: Competitiveness and Cooperativeness At Schoolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income inequality predicts competitiveness and cooperativeness at school.

Sommet¹,

Weissman²,

Elliot³

2022

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although previous studies have shed light on the mechanism of washback by exploring the factors influencing students' English learning behavior (Wei, 2017), few have addressed the relationships between the factors. This is a serious limitation because theories and models must explain the relationships between concepts rather than merely list them (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).…”

Section: Washback Of Testing On Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of factors involved in Japanese students’ English learning behavior during test preparation

Sato¹

2019

SiLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Japan has recently been promoting university entrance examination reform with the goal of positively influencing students’ English learning, but the extent to which entrance examinations themselves affect English learning is not known. The promotion of better learning requires changing the factors that affect learning behavior, rather than merely modifying existing examinations or introducing new ones. This study investigated the factors determining Japanese students’ English learning while they prepared for high-stakes university entrance examinations, aiming to construct a model that explicates how test-related and test-independent factors are intertwined. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 first-year university students asking how they had prepared for their examinations and why they had chosen particular preparation methods. After thematic analysis, four main factors in student learning behavior were identified (examination, student views, school, and examination-independent factors) and their relationships explored. The study findings provide useful insights for policymakers in English as a foreign language (EFL) educational contexts, where English tests are used as part of language education policies. Furthermore, the proposed model is theoretically important as it explains the complex washback mechanism and deepens our understanding of why intended washback effects on learning are not necessarily achieved.

show abstract