Exploring the washback effects of a high-stakes final exam on primary English teaching from teachers’ perspectives: a case study in China

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4722768/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Exploring the washback effects of a high-stakes final exam on primary English teaching from teachers’ perspectives: a case study in China

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4722768/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The washback effect of English tests has gained considerable attention among researchers in China, but little attention has been given to the angle of primary English education. To address this gap, this study draws on previous mechanism frameworks to investigate the washback effects of the Chengdu Primary School English Final Examination (CPEFE), a primary school diagnostic final exam, on young learners’ English teaching from the perspective of primary teachers in Chengdu, China. The participants were sixth-grade English teachers in primary school. Data were collected using in-depth semi-structured interview, as a qualitative case study method. The results revealed that the test’s emphasis on receptive skills, particularly reading skills, affected the teaching focus. Exam-oriented teaching content and traditional methods still persist, but a recognition of the importance of communicative language teaching (CLT) is emerging. It is hoped that stakeholders will recognise the importance of other constructs that are less emphasised in the CPEFE and leverage various teaching materials and methods to avoid negative washback and enhance pupils’ overall English proficiency.

washback effect

language test

receptive skills

teaching content

teaching method

English assessment and washback effects are at the delicate heart of China’s educational system. As English language education has assumed significance in China over the past 40 years (Qian & Cumming, 2017), English exams have become compulsory in primary schools (Yu & Jin, 2014), more or less influencing the teaching and learning of English for young learners. The influence of exams on teaching is described as “washback” (Alderson & Wall, 1993). However, teaching activities are not the only element influenced by tests as both teachers and students normally adjust their teaching and learning activities to fit the demand of tests (Buck, 1988). Therefore, Hughes (1989) holistically defines washback as a test’s influence on both teaching and learning, which is commonly accepted.

The Chengdu Primary School English Final Examination (CPEFE) is a series of formative and diagnostic English tests administered at the end of each term in primary schools at Chengdu, China, from grade 3 to the first term of grade 6 (seven times in all). The CPEFE is designed by the Educational Bureau of Chengdu, which is under the direct authority of the Chinese Ministry of Education (MOE). According to the MOE (2022), the CPEFE aims to check students' performance and gather learning and teaching feedback to deal with the root causes of problems and develop the ongoing educational program. For this reason, seven pencil-and-paper exams are designed according to the English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (MOE, 2022) to translate basic knowledge learned in the course into the ability being tested.

The monolingual background of China (Yin, 2011) caused a problem as reading and listening skills became the focus, whilst speaking and logic writing skills were less frequently assessed before 2000. Reforms between 2004 and 2007 elevated the priority of students' oral and writing English skills to align with globalization (Yang, Gu & Liu, 2013). Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the CPEFE is aligned with these reforms and give equal importance to the four skills.

According to Gu (2005), teachers’ perceptions significantly affect the improvement of teaching methods and content, the two main elements of the teaching process contributing to higher teaching quality. Additionally, unlike adult learners who possess self-leaning ability, children are unique learners who need knowledgeable adults (teachers, most of the time) to guide their learning and development (Wasik & Jacobi-Vessels, 2017). Therefore, primary school teachers play a crucial role in guiding young learners to learn a second language. However, washback research related to this particular group is rarely considered. This is the reason why studying the washback effect from teachers’ perspectives is important.

As for research on the assessment of young learners, exam task design (SARIGÖZ & Fişne, 2019), scoring process (Cho & Blood, 2020), test use (Shohamy, 2020), test judgement (Hsieh, 2016) and young learners’ language assessment literacy (Butler, Peng & Lee, 2021) have been investigated, yet few consider the washback effect on teaching young learners. This may be reasonable for those countries with few exams for young learners, but in the unique exam-oriented context of China, it is necessary to fill this gap to prevent a negative chain reaction. Secondary and even tertiary English teaching may be adversely affected if the fundamental teaching problems in primary schools are not identified.

Therefore, to better understand the washback effect in the context of English as a foreign language teaching in primary school in China, we conducted a qualitative case study to generate an understanding. The following two research questions have been addressed in this study:

Does the CPEFE give equal importance to all language skills from teachers’ perspectives? What is the washback effect of this test design on teachers?

Does the CPEFE influence primary English teachers’ teaching content and methods? How?

Washback

Definition of washback

Washback (Alderson & Wall, 1993), also termed as “backwash” (Hughes, 1989; Biggs, 1995), refers to the influence of testing on learning and teaching in applied linguistics (Hughes, 1989; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Cheng, 2003; Mohd, 2018), whereas Messick (1996) defines it as the influence of testing specifications and their use. However, this practical view concentrates on promoting positive washback and avoiding negative washback, which is more meaningful and practical for primary teachers, without explaining the basics of the concept of washback. This research also mentions the washback effects in the classroom and the broader educational system, which aligns with Andrews, Fullilove and Wong’s (2002) arguments that washback effects can be narrow/micro and wide/macro.

At the micro level, washback is restricted to classroom activities. Madaus (1988) points out that as the major impetus of education, testing has an overall impact on teaching and learning processes. However, this view is still ambitious in terms of how and why tests drive teaching and learning processes. Considering this limitation, Buck (1988) mentions that washback is a natural tendency. For example, when a test is a high-stake test, it leads to larger changes in classroom activities than a low-stake test (Buck, 1988; Mohd, 2018). Nevertheless, Messick (1996, p. 263) claims that washback is an intended process because “tests influence teachers and learners to do things that they would not necessarily otherwise do”. The opinions above raise questions about both accidental and intentional washback, and it is important to focus on the washback effects in the classroom, the main place that directly influences teaching and learning.

Conversely, Shawcross (2002) and Shirzadi & Amerian (2020) argued that washback has wide social effects and stakeholders, including parents, experts, publishers and policy makers. Interpreting washback in a broader sense enables the study process to become systematic and comprehensive as each stakeholder plays a significant role in washback processes. However, some researchers (Wall, 1997; Shohamy, 2001; Xu &Liu, 2018) argue that this macro definition belongs to the term “test impact”, while washback has roots in a narrower context. This comment opens the door for further research about the definitions of the two terms, which are still uncertain. Although the definitions discussed above are perceived in diverse aspects, they all refer to the influence of tests on teaching and learning related stakeholders, processes, and products. Therefore, washback could be defined as the unconscious and intended influence of tests on teaching and learning both inside and outside classroom.

Classification of washback

The effects of washback can be either beneficial or harmful (Messick, 1996). According to Xu and Liu (2018), positive washback has different definitions in diverse contexts. At the micro level, positive washback emphasises short-term benefits, including inducing effective teaching practices and learning activities in the classroom (Taylor, 2005), and improving students’ grades in the short-term. However, positive washback at the micro level may ignore long-term educational development, such as improving teaching skills, and focus on introducing new textbooks and curriculum and formulating language-related policies (Cheng, 2005), which are aimed in the macro context (Jaan & Khan, 2013). The two dimensions comprehensively generalize the characteristics of positive washback and provide clear teaching aims.

Negative washback refers to the poor effects of tests (Alderson &Wall, 1993). According to Spratt (2005), negative washback initially leads to unsuitable teaching content and methods since teachers are the most significant agents in introducing washback effects (Djurić, 2015). Aiming to achieve test requirements, teachers may narrow curriculum and promote traditional teaching methods, such as memorization to restrict students’ comprehensive language ability (Saif, 2006). In other words, teachers mainly focus on exam-oriented teaching methods and content to help students pass exams while ignoring their own views on tests. However, very few studies have discussed the concept of negative washback at the macro level, so further research is needed.

Mechanism of washback

Alderson and Wall (1993) proposed 15 hypotheses illustrating the influence of tests on teaching and learning, covering teach/learn (methods), what to teach/learn (content), attitudes of teachers and learners (participants), and the sequence and degree of teaching/learning (products). These hypotheses offer a clear and detailed explanation of washback and constitute an adaptable theoretical framework for further research. However, they are listed without systematic categorisation, so they need to be more precise and explicit, as Hughes (1994) stated that the hypotheses are too broad to explain what constitutes washback effects.

Alderson and Wall (1993) focused on the micro context of washback. Hughes (1993, as cited in Bailey, 1996) held a macro view on washback and developed a trichotomy model. His model distinguishes washback effects from participants, processes and products (see Figure 1), which are more specific and organised, and takes stakeholders’ perception into account. The trichotomy model describes washback as a linear process, that is, tests initially affect participants’ perception and attitudes, which reversely affect what participants do, therefore affecting the learning outcomes or product of the work (Zhang, 2019). However, this model still lacks consideration of the interrelationship among the three components, which is replenished by Bailey (1996).

Bailey (1996) propounded a macro-level model of washback that vividly depicts the variable interaction among tests, participants, processes, and products, facilitating more comprehensive washback research(Figure 2). According to Bailey (1999), from teachers’ perspectives, the washback process is made up by teaching content, materials, and methods/strategies that are used in the classroom. The definition of product is similar to what Hughes mentioned (1993), but it is more specifically categorised into two parts: “What is learned” refers to the learning facts and language skills achieved by learners, and “the quality of learning” refers to fluency and other criteria reached after teaching and the learning processes. Based on this relatively comprehensive model, this study will investigate the washback effect on teachers, processes (teaching content and teaching methods), and products.

The washback effects on teaching

In research on washback effects on teaching, some researchers suggest that tests strongly affect teachers, leading to an uneven emphasis on language skills. Sukyadi and Mardiani (2011) investigated the impact of the English National Examination in Indonesia and found that teachers mainly teach for passing the test and place more emphasis on listening and reading skills. Further, Zhan and Andres (2014) explored the impact of CET-4 on Chinese undergraduates and found the same result. The studies show that tests can affect teachers’ perception of what is expected to be taught in class, thus triggering exam-related teaching activities. However, it does not mean that receptive skills are always emphasised in test design or receive strong washback effects. Larsson and Olin-Scheller (2020) discovered that tests notably impact the instruction of oral and writing skills, while reading practices are less affected.

Adversely, some researchers argue that tests only have limited intended washback effects on teaching. For example, Qi (2004) reported that the Chinese National Matriculation English Test inefficiently induce pedagogical changes and unsuccessfully confine teaching content since teaching basic linguistic knowledge is still emphasised in China although the teachers partly change to teach to the test. The differences in the results of the above studies can be attributed to the diverse context and test-takers’ different age groups. These researchers found that teachers’ views and teaching processes are partly affected by tests, with few discussion on the causality of such phenomena.

Additionally, Cheng (2004) and Pan and Newfields (2011) state that tests have little or no obvious effects on teaching because teachers devote little preparation for the test without changing teaching practices in the classroom. Cheng (2004) found a gap that although teachers’ perception of what was expected of teaching had changed in terms of the new exam requirements, where they were still reluctant to make changes in teaching activities, methodology, and teaching materials. Pan and Newsfields’ (2011) study showed that the reason for this phenomenon was teachers’ willingness to focus on teaching basic language skills.

The studies above are based on different political, social, economic and cultural contexts, resulting in divergent findings. The results vary from tests fully or partly affecting teaching to tests having no influence on teaching. Given the non-uniform results from diverse contexts and few research focus on primary English teaching (Wu, 2013), it would be reasonable to investigate the washback effect on teaching in China, especially in the primary English teaching context as there is a gap in the existing washback literature. Therefore, the specification of the CPEFE and some basic primary English teaching processes in China will be discussed in the next two parts.

The constructs (skills) tested in the CPEFE

The CPEFE contains a paper-and-pencil test designed by the provincial MOE and an oral test organised by each school. The written test plays a crucial role in students’ secondary school matriculation. Table 1 summarises the test items in the CPEFE for six-grade pupils. The constructs tested predominantly focus on receptive skills, including listening and reading skills, together with discrete vocabulary and grammatical knowledge. However, language output is less frequently covered in the test as writing skills are merely evaluated in the integrative gap-filling task.

The relationship of receptive skills and productive skills was one of the major concerns related to English test design in many countries. Akpinar and Cakildere (2013) found that two English tests in Turkey have positive washback effects only on reading, which is emphasised in the exams and by teachers. Therefore, students could get higher grades with more reading practice in class, whilst other skills may be adversely affected. Nevertheless, Qi (2004) and Mohd (2018) yielded different results, indicating that despite a focus on reading in the tests, teachers continued to instruct students on writing skills in class. These differences indicate that the diverse washback effects in different contexts might be different, necessitating research on the impacts of the CPEFE from teachers’ perspectives.

Primary English education in China

Teaching materials and content

By the end of the 20th century, 30 provinces in China started to teach English in primary school (Liu, 2008). Therefore, many textbooks were published and became the main teaching content. However, according to Wu (2013), nowadays in China, textbooks are no longer the only materials used in the primary classroom since teachers can take advantage of various online resources from school-equipped multi-media facilities to motivate young learners to learn English. This finding supports Cameron’s (2003, p. 244) advice that the advent of the Internet is “changing the possibilities for language learning” because appealing equipment, including computers and videos, are required so that school education “meshes into young learners’ life”. Qi (2004) asserts that teachers assume the preferences of the markers and thus use more test-related materials in classes to help students get higher grades. However, her view is countered by Sun (2016), who claims the limited function of testing materials in EFL education. The two researchers both see the positive and negative effects of using exam-oriented materials in classes, making their views not conflicted but complementary.

Teaching methods

There is a gap between theories of teaching methods and the real teaching practice in China (Wu, 2013). On one hand, researchers such as Liu (2008) and official documents from MOE (2022) suggest that primary English teaching methods in China transitioned from a traditional Grammar Translation Method (GTM) to the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, thereby promoting students’ communicative competence. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the basic principles of the two teaching approaches.

Giving a priority to language form, GTM concentrates on learning vocabulary and grammar rules and structures through intensive reading, grammatical analysis, translation to native language, memorization, and rote learning, overlooking communicative competence (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). Therefore, this method produces students with a solid foundation and strong reading skills. However, its overwhelming emphasis on grammar analysis and text translation can weaken students' communicative ability, negatively affect learning initiative, and contribute to teacher-centred strict and boring classes (Deng, 2023).

As a latest teaching approach, the CLT approach aims to develop learners’ communicative competence through prioritizing teaching functional aspects of language rather than grammatical rules (Richards et al., 1992). This definition highlights the conflict between function and structure. However, it does not mean that the importance of grammar is ignored. Conversely, grammar and function are complementary, with less systematic teaching of the former to ensure the comprehensive use of the target language (Thamarana, 2015). The CLT approach also has several salient characteristics leading to both advantages and disadvantages. First, more importance is given to fluency than accuracy (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). The uneven emphasis makes errors as a natural outcome, enabling students with limited language proficiency to gain more learning confidence and motivation in the process of language learning (Richards, 2006), whereas it sometimes produces “fluent but inaccurate” learners (Hughes, 1983). CLT also introduces authentic materials, role plays, simulations, group work, etc to classroom activities, allowing the rehearsal of real life situations, so the use of students’ native language is constrained, thereby enhancing students’ communicative competence and English using ability (Harmer, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). However, it can be hard to produce an authentic teaching and learning situation due to three groups of constraints, including systemic constraints (e.g. the lack of authentic sources and equipment, large class sizes), cultural constraints (e.g. native speaker teachers, beliefs of teacher and student role), and personal constraints (e.g. students’ unequal ability, teachers’ limited teaching experience on group work) (Hiep, 2007). Furthermore, as CLT moves classes from teacher-centered to learner-centered, the teacher’s role also change to manager, counsellor, and “co-communicator” to provide students with enough time and space for exercise and communication, therefore facilitating learning processes (Brown, 2001).

The current transition from traditional grammar approach to CLT shows the change of educators’ focus from form to function. However, although many teachers understand the importance of CLT, they still insist on a traditional grammar translation method (Butler, 2015), which negatively affects teaching practice. For example, Han (2021) found that CET-4 encourages teachers to teach through rote memorization and translation, constraining the development of students’ communicative competence and creativity. Unfortunately, the research fails to explain if the teaching methods are suitable and neglect the problem of changing teaching methods. Nevertheless, Hu (2005) argues that it is not necessary to care about whether a teaching method is traditional or not, what needs to be considered is if test-oriented teaching methods suit a group of students in a specific context. This view is called “context approach” (Liao, 2004; Bax, 2023). The emphasis of the application of teaching methods could be more realistic for classroom teaching.

This literature review provides a basic understanding of washback effect and the current situation of primary school English testing in Chinese context, while it shows that further research is required to fill the gap in washback and primary English education research.

The study aims to discover teachers’ in-depth and multiple views on the constructs tested in the CPEFE and the washback effects on teaching materials and methods. Although the constructs tested in the CPEFE have already been analysed in Chapter 2, the two research questions aim to find diverse opinions stemming from participants' varied experiences and thinking patterns, therefore embracing interpretivism paradigm and utilising a qualitative research approach to address the research questions. With the epistemological assumption, a qualitative study provides the researcher with the opportunity to closely engage with participants, therefore gaining deeper and diverse data. Therefore, the case study method was employed to shed light on teachers’ perspectives on the constructs tested in the CPEFE and washback phenomenon on teaching. Although the case study merely focuses on teachers in a typical boundary, it still yields distinctive data (Gerring, 2004). Embedded in a real and complicated social context, the case study method elicits a substantial amount of data through critically understanding in-depth and multiple dimensions of the washback phenomenon (Creswell, 2013), making it suitable for investigating the washback phenomenon aligned with the study’s objectives.

Participants

The participants selected for the study were English teachers from a primary school in Chengdu, China. The large school could provide the researcher with selective participants who better understand the washback effect of the CPEFE on teaching processes. Employing purposive or purposeful sampling (Palinkas et al., 2015), five out of seven volunteers were chosen based on gender, years of teaching, times of receiving exam-related training, and educational degrees (Table 2). The selected participants had (a) teaching experience of more than 2 years and were (b) full-time primary sixth-grade English teachers. Sixth-grade marks a transition from elementary to secondary education in China, so in order to ensure pupils’ easy transformation to the secondary school level (MI Sari et al., 2021), teachers’ views on the CPEFE for sixth-grade students would be meaningful. The other two candidates not meeting these criteria were excluded to ensure information-rich cases, supporting the collection of relevant data and a deeper understanding of the washback effect, since choosing participants with purpose can help researchers “identify and select information-rich cases for the most proper utilization of available resources” (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016).

Data collection instruments

Five semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data. Participants can be more confident and relaxed during in-depth interviews due to diverse personalities (Milena, Dainora & Alin, 2008), therefore providing a platform for introverts to express diverse and deeper thoughts. This point is significant in the Chinese context because from my experience, as most Chinese are normally taught to be ineloquent listeners, interviewing participants individually is a more appropriate way to listen to each participant’s personal perspectives and gain deeper data. Furthermore, considering the relatively monolingual context and potential language barriers, interviewees were allowed to speak in Chinese during interviews to ensure free, articulate, and clear expressions as well as to prevent participants from misunderstanding research questions and ensure the researcher correctly understands the participants’ opinions, therefore ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Additionally, the semi-structured interview method was selected for its flexibility and ability to address the two research questions effectively (Scanlan, 2020). Interview questions covered three aspects, including teachers’ personal information, skills emphasised in the CPEFE and related effects, the influence of the CPEFE on teaching methods/content, and products generated. The open-ended structure provides the researcher with a chance to ask customized questions to each participant without deviating from the research questions, thereby supporting the exploration of a greater and more diverse understanding of the washback phenomenon. In this way, obtaining a variety of perspectives opens the door for getting a more stable view of “reality” and protects the credibility of the research. Two pilot studies were conducted to pre-test the adequacy of the research design and refine data collection instruments. Each lasted at least thirty minutes to ensure the collection of enough in-depth raw data. The modified leading and assumptive questions can maximize the engagement of participants’ answers, thereby avoiding ambiguity and enhancing the credibility to some extent (Arksey & Knight, 1999).

Data analysis

The data generated were analysed through thematic analysis, a flexible analysis method for identifying, organizing and offering insight into systematically generated themes (Clarke & Braun, 2017). The analysis process followed Lichtman’s (2023) stages of data analysis(Figure 3), including the process of coding, categorising, and conceptualising, which logically and vividly analysed data in a linear way, from broader data to narrower themes and then to refined framework, showing the ideology of inductive analysis.

Audio recordings were transcribed in Chinese and then translated into English in detail to aid in finding useful codes from the raw data and ensure a better understanding of participants’ views, thereby promoting confirmability and trustworthiness. The original audio and Chinese transcriptions were compared to promote credibility and confirmability, and the translated English versions were re-read to maintain the initial meaning and prevent misinterpretation or ambiguity.

As a process of organising, classifying, and managing data into meaningful groups where themes may occur (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), data coding and analysis used an inductive and grounded theory approach. The codes were derived from the raw content of the interviews, namely from the bottom to the top through colouring the important information. After the initial codes were summarised, similar topics were combined and categorised. Topics less related to the research questions were eliminated (Lichtman, 2023), and the remaining categories were extracted as themes. The final step was to echo, develop understandings, and form a thematic framework based on the summarised codes. Interpretation of qualitative data was guided by previous theoretical knowledge and new data, considering the absence of definite rules in qualitative analysis.

Ethics

The study adhered to the BERA (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Before interviews, each participant received an information sheet showing the basic information of the study. Based on the opt-in strategy, the participants joined the interviews voluntarily and had the right to withdraw at any time. The consent form was explained in the invitation message and explained again before the interviews. The research also considers anonymity and confidentiality to protect participants’ privacy through the use of identification numbers. Participants were called anonymously as Teacher X. Participant data were stored securely on the researcher’s password-protected laptop and were deleted after the completion of the research paper.

This section is structured according to the five overarching themes categorised from the findings. As the core of washback research (Messick, 1996), causality related to teachers’ perspectives are examined.

Teachers’ perspectives about the constructs tested in the CPEFE

This part focused on the first research question, namely teachers’ views on the constructs tested in the CPEFE and its influence on the teaching focus and test preparation.

1. Teachers’ general views on the CPEFE

When asking their views on the CPEFE, all participants distinguish its advantages and weaknesses. In terms of the pros, the teachers regarded the CPEFE as a formative and diagnostic test, showing students’ mastery of English knowledge taught in the classroom. As Teacher A described:

“The test is a comprehensive evaluation, from which I have a clear view on students' English knowledge learned in this semester.”

From the description above, Teacher A believed that the CPEFE provides a comprehensive understanding of students’ learning condition, laying a foundation for more effective teaching review and planning. This view represents the main aim of the CPEFE (MOE, 2022), namely to check students’ performance and gather learning and teaching feedback, showing the correspondence between tests, stakeholders and curriculum aims. In contrast, if the elements discussed above lack alignment, negative washback effects will occur (Pan & Newfileds, 2012). However, as for the cons of the CPEFE, the teachers’ views varied. They considered this issue from both micro and macro levels, which aligns with Andrews, Fullilove and Wong’s (2002) classification logic of washback. At the micro level, believing that the paper-and-pencil test type is too rigorous for the pupils. As Teacher C commented:

“The exam content is rigid and monotonous. This paper test only focuses on discrete linguistic knowledge, therefore restricting students and affecting their confidence.”

Her critique shows that the test design and test content were not quite reasonable. If students at different levels use the same exam paper, their learning motivation and confidence can be adversely affected. Additionally, merely concentrating on linguistic knowledge, the test under-represents test takers’ other skills, such as logical thinking, critical thinking and creativity. In the macro context, two teachers considered the test’s negative washback on students’ all-round development. As Teacher E stated the following:

“Too much emphasis on scores limits students’ all-round development.”

Possibly, her belief is driven by educational policies from MOE, reflecting a shift of educational concepts from focusing on scores to pupils’ comprehensive development. As the two teachers had many years of teaching experience, they may have experienced the change of China’s educational policies and have a broader insight into the CPEFE.

2. The CPEFE’s emphasis on receptive abilities

According to the interviews, all teachers pointed out that the CPEFE prioritized receptive skills, especially reading skills. This finding aligns with the results of Akpinar and Cakildere’s (2013) study, and the emphasis on receptive constructs was attributed to students' ongoing knowledge accumulation. As Teacher D suggested the following:

“Pupils are accumulating knowledge since their language ability is still inadequate for output”.

Furthermore, reading can better reflect students’ integrated language ability because vocabulary, grammar, semantic knowledge, and discourse were more systematically tested in reading than in discrete listening items. As Teacher D stated the following:

“Students are still input-oriented, and comprehensive ability can be better reflected by reading.”

3. Teaching focus

Trying to teach all four skills to cultivate students’ comprehensive abilities, most teachers still prefer to spend more time on teaching reading (Zhan and Andres, 2014). As Teacher B commented the following:

“The test is designed based on textbooks focusing on receptive skills, so I still focus on teaching reading, ensuring my students get higher grades.”

The teacher mentioned the cause of this phenomenon, pointing out that students’ grades and teaching materials drove her to focus on reading skills. Unlike other teachers, Teacher A’s teaching focus was not influenced by the construct emphasised in the test. He stated the following:

“I pay attention to all aspects of ability training because with full practice, students will have no problem in passing the exam.”

The statement above mentioned the fundamental role of cultivating students’ comprehensive abilities. Language skills are interrelated, so the improvement of reading skills can lead to the promotion of other skills. The difference between the statements could be the result of diverse teaching backgrounds (Watanabe, 2004), resulting in Teacher A’s unfamiliarity with the test; therefore, the importance of the test might be underestimated.

4. Test preparation

Although Cheng (2004) found that teachers devote little preparation for tests, in the present study, it is surprising that large percentage of teachers give a systematic test preparation class before the exam. In this way, they can identify students’ weakness and ask pupils to pay attention. This action may help students avoid previous mistakes and achieve higher grades. As teacher E stated the following:

“Before the final exam, special review time will be set up to complete, evaluate and analyse papers in order to find the weak points.”

However, Teacher D asserted:

“During revision, I usually spend less time on deliberate exam preparation.”

She deemed that students’ overall language skills, which are directly related to grades, are more necessary, so she paid more attention to them. Nevertheless, she still spent time on test preparation due to the importance of the CPEFE, a reference for the matriculation of secondary schools.

Teaching content and methods

This Section investigated the second research question, the washback effect of the CPEFE on teaching content and methods.

Textbooks and supplementary materials

1. Completely following textbooks without supplementation

Surprisingly, Teacher A’s teaching content was less affected by the test since he completely followed the textbooks without adding any supplementary content. The reason could be that the young teacher lacked experience in arranging teaching content and selecting suitable teaching materials for a large class with students at diverse English levels (Watanabe, 2004). Therefore, he chose to completely follow the textbooks without self-selection. As teacher A stated:

“I can't even finish the textbook that is prescribed by the Educational Bureau. Besides, 55 students in my class have different English levels, so it is difficult to choose a material to suit everyone.”

The comment above showed that other than the teacher’s personal factors, such as experience and unfamiliarity, some external factors, including policies, class size and students’ diverse language levels can also affect teachers’ choice of teaching materials. Additionally, the lack of training also negatively affect teachers in evaluating and choosing appropriate materials. With less extended content, the teaching and learning process are tedious, therefore negatively affecting students’ learning interests, classroom atmosphere and teaching quality.

2. Focusing on textbooks with test-unrelated supplementary materials

Aligning with Qi’s (2004) finding, the present research reveals that Teacher C’s teaching content was not confined by the test since teaching basic linguistic knowledge was still emphasised. Focusing on textbooks, she was willing to add some test-unrelated materials. She commented:

“I find some textbook-related content as supplement. Truly, I don't like asking pupils to do test exercises in my class.”

Her choice of adding text-related knowledge is a significant way to help pupils broaden their horizons and better understand the texts, although they may lack the chance to know more about the test. Furthermore, Teacher C adopted picture books and multimedia materials, such as songs and videos, in her classes. As she said:

“I usually choose some novel videos, songs and picture books in my class to attract students.”

Those multi-media and authentic materials effectively simulate students’ interests and learning motivation (Wu, 2013), which play a significant role in primary English teaching, especially improving teaching quality. As she asserted the following:

“After students enhance their interest in learning, they will listen carefully to what I taught, therefore facilitating the improvement of my teaching quality.”

3. Teaching with textbooks and test-related supplementary materials

Nevertheless, partly affected by the CPEFE, the rest of the three teachers’ teaching was based on textbooks but allowed flexibility, including adding exam-related supplementary materials. The existence of washback effect on their teaching content is due to the importance of the test and the defects of the textbooks. As teacher E said:

“The Educational Bureau will evaluate teachers’ teaching quality according to students’ average test performance, the weather vane of exam adjustment .”

Her view showed that students’ performance in the test was a crucial basis of test design modification and could reflect teaching quality, which may influence teachers’ reputation and school ranking. Therefore, Teacher D and Teacher B added the importance of the CPEFE and test exercises:

“Since the final examination results of grade 6 will be used as a reference for junior high school matriculation, I arrange more test-related test exercises.”

They captured the close relationship of students’ performance on the CPEFE and junior high school matriculation, which reflects the huge washback effects made by the high-stake test. Teachers E added the following:

“I usually add some texts to enhance the practice of vocabularies and grammar tested in the exam, therefore improving pupils’ familiarization with the test.”

When choosing the supplementary materials, she considered their relationship with the exam, difficulty and suitability to young learners. Teaching test-related knowledge can enhance pupils’ familiarity with the test items and tasks, thereby promoting their test grades and teachers’ reputation.

Figure 4 summarises research findings above, reflecting the interrelation of the CPEFE, teaching content and teaching products. The blue arrows indicate the correlations. Teachers have diverse views on reading skill emphasised in CPEFE, which respectively influences teachers to focus on receptive skills. Then, teachers adopt test-oriented materials, test-unrelated materials or even without supplementary materials in classes. However, in the yellow dotted boxes, it seems that only test-oriented materials reflected the knowledge tested, and are likely to be directly affected by the CPEFE, showing the alignment of curriculum and the test. Therefore, test-related materials bring both positive and negative washback effects, which shown as the products, including test grades and teachers’ reputation that can be diagnosed by the test and reversely affect the design of the test.

Teaching methods: turning from traditional methods to CLT

In the interviews, all five participants declared that their teaching methods were affected by the CPEFE. The data showed that most teachers were shifting their teaching methods towards CLT, although the CPEFE influenced them to retain some traditional teaching methods.

1. Traditional test-oriented teaching method

Traditional cramming methods were still used in the classes. As teacher E commented:

“Our school is still traditional, focusing more on teachers speaking, students listening, and overloaded test exercises practising.”

Her view was supported by Teacher C who said the following:

“This test compels me to pay more attention to students' recitation of vocabulary, understanding of sentence and grammar, and translation.”

Focusing on recitation, discrete words, and grammatical knowledge and translation (Larsen-Freeman, 2011), GTM can improve students’ test grades and language accuracy in the short term. Nevertheless, it may negatively impact language fluency, flexible language use, students’ learning initiative, and logic/critical thinking ability (Deng, 2023).

2. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach

Compared to test-oriented teaching methods, teachers also used some flexible, practical, and interactive methods of the CLT approach. Caring about pupils’ age and learning habit, teachers showed their reluctance of leveraging exam-oriented teaching method and the desire to use varied methods (Cheng, 2004), indicating a turn from a traditional grammar translation method to CLT. As Teacher A said the following:

“Considering the age of pupils, I cannot fully use test-oriented teaching methods but some richer or more interesting approaches instead.”

Unlike adults who care more about the knowledge itself, pupils may take the funny side of the content and ways of teaching seriously. They could be more willing to learn new knowledge with shifting and attractive teaching methods. An increased sense of engagement may appear if they actively take part in the teaching instead of listening to the teachers all the time.

Group work, including group discussion, was a teaching strategy used by most of the teachers to stimulate students’ enthusiasm for learning English through interaction with classmates, therefore promoting communication ability, language fluency, and accuracy (Harmer, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). It seemed that pupils can learn more and better when learning in groups than when learning by themselves because synergy emerges in shared learning. As teacher D claimed:

“I also arrange group discussions and role play to stimulate students’ initiative for independent learning. By sharing ideas, pupils could learn more and find problems in their own ideas, that is, 1 + 1 > 2.”

Teacher C supported her view by saying the following:

“After group practicing and mutual learning, their pronunciation, intonation, fluency or accuracy is improved.”

Asking questions, encouraging problem solving, and conducting guided teaching were other methods teachers used in classes. As Teacher D stated the following:

“Sometimes I ask questions. When students are in trouble, I encourage them to solve problems step by step. I like guiding them instead of helping them directly.”

The teachers were like guides and students were active participants, forming a learner-centred class phenomenon (Brown, 2001). Asking questions gradually cultivated students’ logical thinking and critical thinking ability. Furthermore, encouraging pupils to independently solve problems with scaffolding can promote their enthusiasm, pragmatic ability and independent learning ability, which could benefit their future learning.

Additionally, regularly giving feedback was popular in primary English teaching classes. As Teacher D asserted:

“Every month we need to give feedback on students’ reading assignments under the school’s supervision. Every day we will give feedback on homework.”

Giving feedback was a beneficial method of revision. When young learners got their homework feedback, they can notice their weakness and then try to avoid them, therefore gradually improving their overall language ability. Considering the young learners’ age, situational teaching strategies, such as teaching with games and role play, were used by three teachers to create a leisure learning environment, release learning stress, attract students, stimulate active learning and improve their confidence, sense of collectivity and learning motivation (Richards, 2005). Therefore, teaching quality could be improved. As Teacher A said the following:

“I am more inclined to play games to arouse students' enthusiasm, make them more attentive to lectures, enhance their sense of collective identity, and the classroom atmosphere will get better.”

However, two teachers felt that for sixth-grade pupils who need systematic language teaching to carry out logical operations (Painter, 2017), games were too easy and time-consuming.

Figure 5 highlights findings about teaching methods, showing the washback effect of the CPEFE on teaching methods, which appeared to be partly affected by the CPEFE and the CLT approach. Shown in the yellow dotted boxes, traditional grammar translation methods (GTM) has direct washback effects. The harness of GTM was directly affected by the test and reflected the aim of the test, namely, to diagnose what students have learned in the classes based on their grades, showing the alignment of teaching methods and the test. Therefore, GTM brought both positive and negative washback effects. However, the CLT approach were not affected by the CPEFE but still used in the classes due to political, individual and contextual factors.

Figure 6 summarises the result of the whole research, reflecting that the CPEFE influenced teachers and partly affected teaching processes. The emphasis of reading skills in the CPEFE affected teachers’ teaching focus and the time spent on test preparation. Furthermore, the CPEFE partly influenced teaching content and teaching methods. On the one hand, as shown in the yellow dotted box, the test encouraged test-oriented teaching materials and methods, producing both positive and negative washback effects. The teaching products, including students’ mastery of language knowledge, were diagnosed by the CPEFE and affect the test’s adjustment. On the other hand, teachers were not constrained by the test and catch the importance of the CLT approach, aiming to cultivate pupils’ overall language ability through long-term comprehensive language teaching. This summarised framework drew upon and complemented Bailey’s (1996) washback mechanism through merging the classification of washback, namely positive and negative washback (Messick, 1998) into it, therefore making the mechanism more practical and contextual (Xu & Liu, 2018).

This study aims to discover teachers’ views on the test design of the CPEFE and its washback effects on teaching, as well as the related causality, identified as the most important necessity in washback analysis (Messick, 1996). The results revealed the test’s emphasis on receptive skills, particularly reading skills, which caused diverse teaching focus and teat preparation. The CPEFE partly affected teaching processes and products, with reluctance to the persistence of exam-oriented teaching content and traditional methods, but a recognition of the importance of communicative language teaching (CLT) was emerging. Below is the discussion of research findings.

1. The washback effects of test deign on teachers’ perceptions and attitudes

To answer the first research question, first of all, teachers grasp the importance of the test. The findings showed that teachers treated the CPEFE as a diagnostic exam, which is designed to evaluate students’ mastery of the knowledge learned in the course through finding students’ weakness and helping them to avoid. This finding is samilar to that of Kunnan and Jang’s (2009) exploration that diagnostic tests reflect students’ weaknesses and strengths, therefore triggering teachers to focus on breakthroughs in defects. The results of the present study proved that their findings are also applicable to the Chinese context. Therefore, conducting the present research in the specific China’s primary English teaching context is a step further from previous correlation studies, showing the importance of “context” in washback study (Alderson & Wall, 1993; Cheng, Watanabe & Curtis, 2004).

Secondly, in the present findings, teachers claimed that the CPEFE gave more importance to receptive skills, especially reading skills, so writing and speaking skills that were less tested in the CPEFE were less concentrated on. This result aligns with the results of Akpinar and Cakildere’s (2013) study. The test’s emphasis on receptive constructs derives from pupils' ongoing knowledge accumulation (Pinter, 2017) which calls for high-quality and a large quantity of language input to generate language output, which reversely influences the foundation of a new stage of input (Liu, 2022). Therefore, the emphasis on receptive skills is supportive in improving the accuracy of productive language and then promoting interlanguage capacity (Wang & Fan, 2020). However, the researchers ignored the fact that sixth-grade is a time when the students’ basic logic thinking ability to produce language is beginning to develop (Pinter, 2017), so productive skills are needed to cultivate students’ integrated language skills (Andrews, Fullilove & Wong, 2002). Therefore, giving importance merely to reading can adversely affect pre-teenagers’ future learning.

Teachers’ perceptions of test nature and design subsequently influenced their teaching focus. Teachers were prone to teach reading skill, the construct highly emphasised in the CPEFE. The results build on existing evidence from Zhan and Andres’ (2014) research showing that CET-4, a English test for college students, influences teachers to focus on constructs tested in the exam. A major difference between these two studies is that other than receptive skills, CET-4 also focuses on writing and translation skills. An explanation is that college students have accumulated enough language skills to support output and their logical thinking ability is more systematically developed than young learners’ (Pinter, 2017). Therefore, adult learners have the capacity to deal with more productive and logical work, while younger pupils do not.

The change of teaching focus held a further impact on test preparation. Perceiving the importance of reading, most teachers used exclusive classes to do test-related exercises, therefore helping enhance students’ test grades and reading ability. However, in China, as sixth-grade pupils need to start developing their writing skills (MOE, 2022), narrowing classes to reading practice can hinder the promotion of pupils’ productive skills and students’ future development (Saif, 2006). Ferman (2004) had the same concern, but his research ignored the participants’ individual differences, therefore leading to the general finding that all teachers engage in test preparation.

The present study also reflects the importance of teachers’ diverse personal background in washback research. Unlike Akpinar and Cakildere’s (2013) study, which found that reading tasks took the largest part in a test and affected all test-takers to merely develop their reading skills, surprisingly, the present study revealed that not every teacher was affected by the test design. The difference could be explained by the fact that washback effects were usually observed for a limited number of participants in a specific context (Alderson & Wall, 1993). Further, Watanabe’s (2004) research showed that the Japanese entrance examination only had negative washback effects on teaching due to teachers’ diverse backgrounds. With diverse teaching backgrounds, teachers were affected by the tests individually and diversely. For example, in the present study, the teacher with the least teaching experience refused to focus on teaching reading and provided systematic test preparation classes; this phenomenon was attributed to his lower educational degree, short teaching duration, and lack of exam-oriented teacher training. This finding was supported by Watanabe (1996) and Chen (2002), who claimed that teachers with more teaching experience, higher degrees, or training tended to be more exam oriented.

2. The washback effects on teaching processes

The CPEFE had limited washback effects on teaching processes. The findings showed a division of using teaching content and teaching methods, partly affected by the CPEFE and the CLT approach. More specifically, teachers’ teaching concepts and methods gradually changed to be more communicative, but they still used exam-related materials and traditional Grammar Teaching Methods due to the exam-oriented context in China (Qian & Cumming, 2017). Qi’s (2004) research showed parallel findings, although she focused on a different context, namely Chinese high school teaching. This phenomenon reflected the current trend that English teaching in China changed from traditional teaching to CLT, which is now strongly promoted by MOE to be English teachers’ preferred teaching approach in China (Butler, Peng & Lee, 2021). Therefore, since the blend of materials and methods was suitable for the Chinese primary English teaching context, it can be termed as the “context approach” (Bax, 2023).

As for the teaching materials, few teachers completely follow textbooks without any supplementation. Teachers not only used textbooks as teaching material (Wu, 2013), and teachers also adapted supplementary test-unrelated multimedia materials to attract young learners, allowing them to be attentive in class and providing them with more vivid information for effective learning. This finding was supported by Cameron (2003), who highlighted the immersion of school education into pupils’ daily life through multimedia, which can be given more attention in further research, as to how multimedia affects self-learning or parenting and has a chain reaction in school education.

In terms of teaching methods, traditional grammar translation methods, including memorization, rote learning, grammar analysis, and translation (Larsen-Freeman, 2011) were still used because of the test’s impact, while teachers paid attention to practical language learning and communicative ability. From the findings, methods, including group discussion, giving feedback, scaffolding, situational teaching and questioning, emphasised the central role of students and cultivated their ability to use language, therefore encouraging their English thinking and expressive ability (Harmer, 2007). This is supported by Kong (2011), but he pointed out a drawback of CLT that Chinese pupils felt they grasped nothing in a communicative class due to their insufficient language input. This view aligns with Hiep’s (2007) suggestion that personal constraints can negatively affect the use of CLT. However, Kong (2011) overlooked the fact that large class sizes in China may also hinder the use of CLT, which was explored in this study and Liao’s (2004) research.

To conclude, based on Messick’s (1996) framework, the above discussion can be organised as two categories, namely the positive and negative washback of the CPEFE on teaching processes. The positive washback was that the test focused teachers’ attention on reading and exam-oriented exercises. Therefore, students can promote their reading ability, become more familiar with the test, and grasp more confidence to get higher grades (Messick, 1996). Another positive washback was that the test drove teachers to use recitation and translation to help students improve their language accuracy and grades in a short term. However, negative washback on the teaching processes also occurred. For example, narrowing the scope, content, and methods of teaching can prevent the long-term improvement of overall language skills, especially oral communicative ability (Ferman, 2004; Saif, 2006). Narrowing teaching methods to translation and memorization adversely influences communication ability (Kong, 2011). However, washback is not definitely beneficial or harmful (Wall, 2015), so the positive and negative washback effects in this study may mutually transfer due to the changing contexts and teachers’ diverse backgrounds, resulting in the rise of multiple perspectives from different angles (Alderson & Wall, 1993).

The aim of this research was to investigate the language skills emphasised in the CPEFE with its washback effects on teachers’ perceptions, primary English teaching methods, content and products. In relation to this aim, two related research questions were examined. A qualitative case study was conducted to gather data from five online in-depth semi-structured interviews with five primary English teachers in China. The results showed how the CPEFE affected teachers to adopt teaching processes, and its followed outcomes.

One of the major findings of the study was that teachers’ teaching focus shifted towards the tested skills (Cheng, Watanabe & Curtis, 2004). The main emphasis of the CPEFE test was on pupils’ receptive skills, especially reading skills, which, in turn, drove teachers to focus on the cultivation of pupils’ reading skills and related test perpetration, thereby causing a bit limited positive and negative washback effects in terms of participants’ diverse background. A positive washback effect was that as a diagnostic test, the CPEFE periodically evaluated students’ mastery of English knowledge and helped students make up for deficiency. Also, the test’s emphasis on receptive skills leaded to more accurate and productive language output. Overloaded test-related preparation brought higher grades to students and better reputation to teachers, but narrowing teaching to reading skill can harm the cultivation of productive skills.

Another finding was that the selection of teaching content and methods were partly affected by the CPEFE, leading to both beneficial and harmful teaching products. The CPEFE influenced teachers to adopt test-related teaching materials to improve students’ reading ability, language accuracy and test grades. However, teachers were also using test-unrelated multimodal teaching materials to attract students and enhance teaching efficiency. Also, findings showed a teaching methodological shift from traditional GMT towards CLT approach, which promoted students’ comprehensive language ability (Thamarana, 2015), reflecting gradually faded washback effects. GMT can improve students’ test grades and language accuracy in a short run, but it may negatively impact overall language ability, students’ learning initiative and thinking ability (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). The phenomenon above reflected the complexity of washback effects (Alderson & Wall, 1993). Since the CLT approach was not affected by the test itself but by both test-unrelated macro (educational policies, class size) and individual (teachers diverse background; young learners’ spiritual growth and English levels) factors, the existence of CLT in the classes cannot be called as a washback effect. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the impacts indirectly related to tests in washback research.

Implications

The main contribution of the study is closing the gap between washback research and primary English teaching in the unique Chinese context and replenish Bailey’s (1996) washback mechanism framework through relating it to the classification of washback effects. As language testing in China’s primary schools are less emphasised than that in secondary or high school, conducting washback related research is meaningful. Specifically, this study also provides constructive suggestions for teaching and language testing stakeholders, including primary English teachers, schools, teaching materials designers and test designers, with the aim of promoting positive washback and avoiding negative washback.

One major implication of this study is that teachers catch the importance of self-improvement. Since the diversity of washback effects derive from participants’ diverse personal background (Watanabe, 2004), teachers need to enhance their familiarity with the test to reduce test-related cognitive divide through accumulating more teaching experience, obtaining higher degrees and attending more exam-oriented training. Additionally, this study has raised important questions about striking a balance between two teaching approaches, namely, GMT, a dominant teaching approach and CLT, a newly introduced popular approach in the recent two decades. Due to the pedagogical shift from GMT to CLT (MOE, 2022), teachers and other stakeholders should catch the importance of professional training about CLT, trying to promote the positive effects of the approach and avoid its side effects. For example, MOE can provide more authentic textbooks to avoid the restriction of domestic textbooks. However, the importance of GMT should not be overlooked. As researchers (Liao, 2004; Bax, 2023) claim that washback research is context-based, what teaching methods and content should be adopted depend on each unique context. Furthermore, the CPEFE exerted negative washback effects for teachers who emphasise test skills and narrow teaching content. Therefore, teachers should balance teaching and testing, avoiding excessive teaching focus on tested constructs and test preparation and making teaching content align with curriculum. Moreover, this study also reminds schools of the important questions about the large class size and students’ diverse language levels. As a result, schools need to employ more teachers to open more classes and sort students according to their English levels to avoid negative washback effects showed in this research.

The present study is limited by the small sample size, so more diverse stakeholders should be invited to the research. Basically, various research methods, especially classroom observations are needed to investigate the washback effects in a deeper and broader way, therefore enhancing the validity and generalisability of findings (Alderson & Wall, 1993). However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it could be hard for the researcher to conduct observations in real classes since the courses were given online. The sample number is also restricted because of some teachers’ reluctance to use the network.

Further washback studies should not be restricted to the classroom but focus on the perception of wider stakeholders (Shawcross, 2002), especially students, test designers and text-related material publishers, and how their teaching and learning related processes or products are affected. Additionally, since washback is a complex phenomenon (Alderson & Wall, 1993), longitudinal studies with diverse data collection methods need to be adopted in the future to compare findings showed in different contexts. More empirical studies are also warranted to distinguish whether the implications explored in washback-related studies are directly affected by language tests or by other macro and micro elements.

CPEFE: Chengdu Primary School English Final Examination

GTM: Grammar Translation Method

CLT: Communicative language teaching

Competing interests:

The authors report there no competing interests to declare.

Funding:

The study received no funding.

Author Contribution

All authors had equal contribution in the process of the paper. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements:

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials:

All data that support the findings of this study are included in this manuscript and its supplementary information files.

Akpınar, K. D., & Çakıldere, B. (2013). Washback effects of high-stakes language tests of Turkey on productive and receptive skills of academic personnel. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 9(2), 81-94.
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115
Ali, M. M., & Hamid, M. O. (2020). Teaching English to the test: Why does negative washback exist within secondary education in Bangladesh? Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1717495
Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback—A case-study. System, 30(2), 207-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00005-2
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviews and research in the social sciences. Interviewing for Social Scientists, 2-21.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300303
Bailey, K. M. (1999). Washback in language testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Barnes, M. (2017). Washback: Exploring what constitutes “good” teaching practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.003
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.278
Biggs, J. (1995). Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. Curriculum Forum, 4(2), 1-22.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman (p. 2nded).
Buck, R. (1988). Human motivation and emotion. John Wiley & Sons.
Butler, Y. G. (2015). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004-2014). Language Teaching, 48(3), 303-342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000105
Butler, Y. G., Peng, X., & Lee, J. (2021). Young learners’ voices: Towards a learner-centered approach to understanding language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 38(3), 429-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532221992274
Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELF from the expectation in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57(2), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.105
Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: Washback on teacher perceptions and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(3), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00046-8
Cheng, L. (2003). Looking at the impact of a public examination change on secondary classroom teaching: A Hong Kong case study. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(1), 1-10.
Cheng, L. (2004). The washback effect of a public examination change on teachers’ perceptions toward their classroom teaching. In Washback in language testing (pp. 169-192). Routledge.
Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study (Vol. 21). Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y., & Curtis, A. (Eds.) (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Mahwah, N.J. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cho, Y., & Blood, I. A. (2020). An analysis of TOEFL® Primary™ repeaters: How much score change occurs?. Language Testing, 37(4), 503-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220927751
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
Deng, M. (2023). An analysis of the Grammar Translation Method in the 20th Century and the inevitability of its application in China. The Educational Review, USA, 7(3), 305-308.
Djurić, M. (2015). Dealing with situations of positive and negative washback. Scripta Manent, 4(1), 14-27.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Ferman, I. (2004). The washback of an EFL national oral matriculation test to teaching and learning. In Washback in language testing (pp. 213-232). Routledge.
Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education (Vol. 25). Cambridge University Press.
Han, F. (2021). Washback of the reformed college English test Band 4 (CET-4) in English learning and teaching in china, and possible solutions. Challenges in Language Testing Around the World: Insights for language test users, 35-46.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. England: Longman.
Hawkey, R. (2006). Impact theory and practice (Vol. 24). Cambridge University Press.
Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm026
Hsieh, C. N. (2016). Examining content representativeness of a young learner language assessment: EFL teachers’ perspectives. In Assessing young learners of English: Global and local perspectives (pp. 93-107). Cham: Springer.
Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-004-6561-7
Hughes, A. (1983). Second language learning and communication language teaching. New York: Academic Press.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, & Huang (2019). Standardized proficiency tests in a Campus-Wide English curriculum: A washback study. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0096-5
Jaan, M., & Khan, I. S. (2013). Examination washback over learning and teaching. Learning, 4(26).
Kong, N. (2011). Establishing a comprehensive English teaching pattern combining the communicative teaching method and the grammar-translation method. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 76-78.
Kunnan, A. J., & Jang, E. E. (2009). Diagnostic feedback in language assessment. The handbook of language teaching, 610-627. DOI:10.1002/9781444315783
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Priciples in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsson, M., & Olin‐Scheller, C. (2020). Adaptation and resistance: Washback effects of the national test on upper secondary Swedish teaching. The Curriculum Journal, 31(4), 687-703. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.31
Liao, X. (2004). The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270-273.
Liu, X. (2022). The relation of input, interaction, and output in SLA. In 2022 7th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2022) (pp. 474-479). Atlantis Press. DOI:10.2991/aebmr.k.220405.078
Lichtman, M. (2023). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Madaus, G. F. (1988). The distortion of teaching and testing: High‐stakes testing and instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619568809538611
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241-256.
Milena, Z. R., Dainora, G., & Alin, S. (2008). Qualitative research methods: A comparison between focus-group and in-depth interview. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 17(4), 1279-1283.
Ministry of Education. (2022). English curriculum standards for compulsory education. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/W020220420582349487953.pdf.
Mohd, N. B. (2018). The washback effect of primary school evaluation test (UPSR) on teaching and learning: A case study of an English teacher in Kuala Terengganu. International Research Journal of Education and Sciences (IRJES), 2(2), 15-18.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Pan, Y., & Newfields, T. (2011). Teacher and student washback on test preparation evidenced from Taiwan’s English certification exit requirements. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(3), 260-272. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2011.6.3.260
Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press.
Qi, L. (2004). Has a high-stakes test produced the intended changes? In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 171-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Qi, L. (2011). A review of washback studies. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2011(4), 23-28.
Qian, D. D., & Cumming, A. (2017). Researching English language assessment in China: Focusing on high-stakes testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(2), 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1295969
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Saif, S. (2006). Aiming for positive washback: A case study of international teaching assistants. Language Testing, 23(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt322oa
Sarigöz, İ. H., & Fişne, F. N. (2019). Integration of task-based language assessment into young learner classrooms. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 403-422. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.651391
Scanlan, C. L. (2020). Preparing for the unanticipated: Challenges in conducting semi-structured, in-depth interviews. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Shawcross, P. (2002). What do we mean by washback effect of testing? Retrieved from http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meetings/ials2/docs/15.shawcross.pdf.
Shirzadi, D., & Amerian, M. (2020). Washback effects of multiple-choice, cloze and metalinguistic tests on EFL students writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 536-544.
Shohamy, E. (2001). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800404
Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr152oa
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
Sukyadi, D., & Mardiani, R. (2011). The washback effect of the English National Examination (ENE) on English teachers’ classroom teaching and students’ learning. k@Ta, 13(1), 96-111.
Sun, Y. (2016). Context, construct, and consequences: Washback of the college English test in China [Doctoral dissertation, Queen's University]. ProQuest dissertations publishing.
Taylor, L. (2005). Washback and impact. ELT Journal, 59(2), 154-155. https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci030
Thamarana, S. (2015). A critical overview of communicative language teaching. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, 3(5), 90-100.
Wall, D., & Alderson, C. (1996). Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 194-222). Bristol, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Wang, X., & Fan, L. (2020). An analysis of interlanguage features and English learning. Journal of Higher Education Research, 1(1), 31-37.
Wasik, B. A., & Jacobi-Vessels, J. L. (2017). Word play: Scaffolding language development through child-directed play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 769-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0827-5
Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13(3), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300306
Wu, X. (2013). Primary English education in china: Review and reﬂection. Primary School English-Language Education in Asia, 19-40.
Xu, Q., & Liu, J. (2018). A study on the washback effects of the Test for English Majors (TEM). New York: Springer.
Yang, Z., Gu, X., & Liu, X. (2013). A longitudinal study of the CET washback on college English classroom teaching and learning in China: Revisiting college English classes of a university. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 304-325. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2013-0021
Yu, G., & Jin, Y. (2014). English language assessment in China: Policies, practices and impacts. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 245-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.937936
Zhan, Y., & Andrews, S. (2014). Washback effects from a high-stakes examination on out-of-class English learning: Insights from possible self-theories. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 21(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.757546
Zhang, C. F. (2019). Literature Review on Washback Effect of the Language testing. International Conference on Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 2019(8), 19-23.

No competing interests reported.

Appendix.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Exploring the washback effects of a high-stakes final exam on primary English teaching from teachers’ perspectives: a case study in China

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Results

Discussion

1. The washback effects of test deign on teachers’ perceptions and attitudes

2. The washback effects on teaching processes

Conclusions

Implications

Limitations

Recommendations

Abbreviations

Declarations

Competing interests:

Funding:

Author Contribution

Acknowledgements:

Availability of data and materials:

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1