Washback of an oral assessment system in the EFL classroom

Muñoz, Ana Patricia; Alvarez, Marta Elena Valdemoros

doi:10.1177/0265532209347148

Cited by 47 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicates teachers' awareness of pragmatic assessment, particularly in an EFL context where such assessment may result in curriculum alignment by encouraging teachers and students to allocate part of teacher focus on pragmatic development. The observation that the inclusion of pragmatic test tasks in the language center's assessment inspired learners to notice pragmatic features in the instruction is in line with many washback studies documenting the positive effect of tests on students learning focus (Andrews, Fullilove, & Wong, 2002;Muñoz & Álvarez, 2010). Although this is particularly true of high-stakes exams, the data in this study reveal that such effects on noticing in the learning process happen even when the exam is a low-stakes one.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…As for pragmatic washback to learning, the reports by learners in the pragmatic group manifested the positive washback of the pragmatics test tasks to them, as previously documented with other components of language proficiency (e.g., Muñoz & Álvarez, 2010). To enhance their performance on the test, they adopted two learning strategies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…This functions as the premise or commonly accepted belief in most empirical washback studies. Accordingly, as Muñoz and Álvarez (2010) put it, most washback studies have explored the positive or negative effects of standardized tests on different areas such as curriculum, materials, teaching methods, and learners' attitudes. The belief in this premise permeates even the studies reviewing the washback literature.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This included a lower absentee rate of candidates from schools submitting SBA marks as well as their better performance in the speaking examination. A similar study was conducted by Muñoz and Álvarez (2010) to investigate the washback of an oral assessment system to some areas of English teaching and learning. It compared an experimental group and a comparison group though a mixed-methods design.…”

Section: Pragmatic Assessment and Pragmatic Test Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Tajeddin¹,

Dabbagh²

2015

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the international surge of interest in the measurement of L2 pragmatic competence, the washback of pragmatic test tasks has remained a noticeably under-researched issue. To bridge this gap, this study sought to investigate the washback of a written discourse completion task (WDCT), as a pragmatic measure, to L2 teachers and learners in two different testing contexts, i.e., one with the addition of WDCT as part of summative assessment (pragmatic testing context) and the other with no such addition to the tests (non-pragmatic testing context). Data from teacher and learner interviews and classroom observations were subjected to content analysis. The results revealed various aspects of pragmatic assessment washback. First, the added pragmatic test tasks in the pragmatic testing context enhanced learners' noticing of pragmatic aspects of listening materials and teacher talk, whereas learners in the non-pragmatic testing context expressed more concern for lexical and grammatical features. Second, pragmatic context learners specified the production of pragmatically appropriate discourse as the ultimate objective of language learning. Finally, most teachers in the pragmatic testing context emphasized the utility of pragmatic-based teaching activities. The findings indicate that lowstakes pragmatic assessment has a positive washback to learning and teaching activities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pragmatic Assessment and Pragmatic Test Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Tajeddin¹,

Dabbagh²

2015

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Muñoz and Álvarez (2010) stress the point that positive washback from a test may also be fostered by informing students explicitly about the assessment procedures and scoring scales used. The present study sheds light on how far Taiwanese EFL learners thought feedback on their oral test results which involved showing them two types of assessment actually served to help them reflect on their performance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher Interpretation of Test Scores and Feedback to Students in EFL Classrooms: A Comparison of Two Rating Methods

Chou¹

2013

HES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rating scales have been used as a major assessment instrument to measure language performance on oral tasks. The present research concerned, under the same rating criteria, how far teachers interpreted students' speaking scores by using two different types of rating method, and how far students could benefit from the feedback of the description of the two rating methods. Fifteen English teachers and 300 college students in Taiwan participated in the study. Under the same rating criteria, the two types of rating method, one with the level descriptors and the other with a checklist, were used by the teachers to assess an English speaking test. It was discovered that the rating method had a noticeable impact on how teachers judged students' performance and interpreted their scores. The majority of the students considered feedback from the verbally more detailed method more helpful for improving language ability.

show abstract

Consequences, Impact, and Washback

Cheng

2013

The Companion to Language Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within a set of relationships, large‐scale high stakes testing induces consequences for its stakeholders—intended and unintended, positive and negative—between testing, teaching, and learning. At the core of this phenomenon lies the (mis)use of test scores and of the values and stakes attached to a test in society and within the pedagogical context where a particular test exists. Washback and impact in applied linguistics refer to two levels: “impact”—the effects of tests on macro‐levels of education and society, and “washback”—the effects of tests on micro‐levels of classroom teaching and learning. Over the past two decades empirical research has established the relationship between testing and teaching; this period has seen an increasing number of studies on learning and learners, as well as on other stakeholders such as publishers, parents, and employers; and studies have increasingly focused on the importance of contextual factors in testing. The challenges for future research relate to the call for collecting validity evidence from multiple stakeholders by using multiple methods to understand this complex phenomenon.

show abstract

Washback of an oral assessment system in the EFL classroom

Cited by 47 publications

References 30 publications

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Teacher Interpretation of Test Scores and Feedback to Students in EFL Classrooms: A Comparison of Two Rating Methods

Consequences, Impact, and Washback

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About