1English Department, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IRAN
2Department of Nursing, School of Nursing, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IRAN
3Department of Computer Sciences, Imam Reza University, Mashhad, IRAN
Background: Testing and teaching are interrelated in education process; using various kinds of tests, teachers are able to anticipate the strong and weak points of learning in students, their progress and their accomplishment. The influence of test on teaching and learning is commonly referred to as washback. Testing washback is a twisted concept that becomes even more complex under a various interpretations of the washback phenomenon on teaching and learning. This study aimed to describe the effects of washback on behaviors of students, in the low stakes testing in English for Specific Purpose (ESP) environment in two-fold. Methods: The effects of different formative tests on the medical students’ English reading comprehension was assessed using Michigan test.. The effects of washback on the students’ attitudes toward English reading comprehensionwas measured by the English Reading Attitudes Questionnaire (ERAQ). Data were analyzed by paired t-test, t-test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Formative tests did not significantly affect on students’ reading comprehension achievement in an ESP environment with (Mean =71.77±12.3 for experimental group vs 67.59±10.3 for control group, p>0.05]. But they showed significant effects on students’ English reading attitudes (Mean = 38.05 for experimental group vs 21.67 for control group ; p<0.001). Conclusions: Findings from this study indicate that although formative tests do not significantly affect students’ reading comprehension achievement in English for Specific Purpose environment, they have significant effects on students’ English reading attitudes.
1. Bachman LF, Palmer AS. Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. USA: Oxford University; 1996.
2. Buck G. Testing listening comprehension in Japanese university entrance examinations. JALT Journal 1988; 10(1): 15-42.
3. Messick S. Validity and washback in language testing. Language testing 1996; 13(3): 241-56.
4. Bailey KM. Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language testing 1996; 13(3): 257-79.
5. Alderson JC, Wall D. Does washback exist? Applied linguistics 1993; 14(2): 115-29.
6. Cheng L, Curtis A. Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. In: Cheng L, Watanabe Y, Curtis A. Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum ; 2004: 3-17.
7. Brown JD. University entrance examinations: Strategies for creating positive washback on English language teaching in Japan. Shiken: JALT testing and evaluation SIG Newsletter 2000; 3(2): 4-8.
8. Shohamy E. Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing model for assessing foreign language learning. Modern language journal 1992; 76(4): 513-21.
9. Shohamy E, Donitsa-Schmidt S, Ferman I. Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language testing 1996; 13(3): 298-317.
10. Cheng L. How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and education. 1997;11(1):38-54.
11. Chen LM. Washback of a public exam on English teaching. New York: Wiley; 2002.
12. Chiang Cl. The effects of graphic organizers on Taiwnese tertiary students' EFL reading comprehension and attitudes towards reading in English. Australia: Australian Catholic Univeristy; 2005.
13. Andrews S. Washback and curriculum innovation. In: Cheng L, Watanabe Y, Curtis A. (editors). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004: 37-50
14. Dörnyei Z. Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University; 2007.
15. Chastain K. Developing second-language skills. 2nd ed. Theory to practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1976.