XXI CENTURY RENAISSANCE IN THE PARADIGM OF SCIENCE,
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
17
RENAISSANCE IN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT AT
SECONDARY SCHOOL IN UZBEKISTAN
Erejepova D.
Nukus, Uzbekistan
MA student, Berdakh KSU
e-mail:
dilfuzkoshanova@gmail.com
+998913935818
Keywords:
Washback, English, SSC, Examination, Uzbekistan (Karakalpakstan,
Nukus).
The reciprocal relationship between language learning-teaching and testing has
laid a remarkable influence of examinations on language education, namely the
washback effect as it is referred to in the literature of language testing. There are
many studies to explore how high-stakes exams affect language instruction.
This
paper presents the findings of a study which aimed at exploring the washback of the
Secondary School Certificate (SSC) English examinations on English teaching and
learning practice at secondary school in Uzbekistan. For this purpose, a qualitative
research (employing interviews with English teachers, FGDs with students and
classroom observations protocol) was conducted in one of the secondary schools in
Uzbekistan (Karakalpakstan, Nukus). The results from data analysis indicate that the
SSC English tests had strong negative washback on English teaching-learning practice
at secondary school resulting from a lack of a congruence between the objectives of
the curriculum and the format of the tests, teachers’ lack of adequate understanding
about the curriculum and present assessment system, respondents’ negative attitudes
towards the test, and pressure from the schools and the parents to ensure good grades
in the final examination. Consequently, teachers and learners adopted such teaching
and learning approaches which are highly examination-oriented. The study puts
forward some suggestions on how positive washback could be generated. The
findings of the study have implications for the decision makers, designers of curricula,
assessment and testing, teachers, and teacher trainers involved in the Uzbekistan
Educational System and elsewhere.
Testing is an integral part of every educational system. That is why evaluation
is one of the necessary modules of each curriculum development program. Tests are
originally designed to be at the service of learning and teaching (Davies 1990).
However, tests have come to act beyond the original role they were given. With the
advent of external tests, a reversal of roles has occurred in educational programs so as
sometimes it is teaching which is at the service of testing.
Washback refers to the extent tests outmaneuver teaching (Hughes 1989,
Shohamy & Ferman, 1996). A family of similar terms, with slight differences in
shades of meaning, have emerged which all have in common a concern for the
undesired or desired influences of tests on learning, teaching, and society. In general
XXI CENTURY RENAISSANCE IN THE PARADIGM OF SCIENCE,
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
18
education, the terms impact, curriculum alignment, and consequential validity are
better known than the terms washback and backwash which are frequently used in
language education (Hamp-Lyons 1997).
Language testing is an evaluation of measuring an individual’s performance in
that language. In many language classes, attitudes towards testing are highly negative.
Recent studies (Jones et al., 1999; Smith, 1991) reveals the fact that tests have
negative effects on learners and their learning. As an example, Yıldırım (2010) carried
out a study to investigate whether ‘The Foreign Language Examination’ in Turkey
exerts a positive or negative impact on test-takers and found that the exam had certain
negative effects on students’ foreign language competences. Teachers noted several
negative effects of testing such as; narrowing of the curriculum, teaching to the test,
lowering teacher morale, increasing student and teacher stress etc. The anticipation of
a test is almost accompanied by feelings of anxiety and self-doubt along with a
fervent hope that you will come out of it alive (Brown, 2004). Test anxiety, an
apprehension towards academic evaluation, is a fear of failing in tests and an
unpleasant experience held either by consciously or unconsciously by learners in
various situations (Horwitz and Young, 1991). Researchers have found that high
student anxiety can have detrimental effects on student performance (Everson,
Smodlaka, & Tobias, 1994). MacIntyre and Gardner(1989) also found significant
negative correlations between a specific measure of language anxiety (French class
anxiety) and performance on a vocabulary learning task. Arguments about the
direction of washback are an expression of debates between competing theories of
learning.
Movement in a particular direction is an inherent part of the use of the
washback metaphor to describe teaching–testing relationships. For example, Pearson
(1988) stated that “public examinations influence the attitudes, behaviors, and
motivation of teachers, learners and parents, and, because examinations often come at
the end of a course, this influence is seen working in a backward direction—hence the
term ‘washback’ (p. 98). However, like Davies (1985), Pearson believed that the
direction in which washback actually works must be forward. The nature of a test can
have an immediate impact on the participants’ expectations and attitudes toward their
teaching and learning tasks. These expectations and attitudes, in turn, can influence
what participants do in the course of their work (process), such as practicing the types
of things that will appear on the test, affecting learning outcomes. As can be seen,
washback is a very complex notion. It can refer to the effect of an examination in the
classroom, but also in the school, in the educational system and also in the society.
Besides, this effect does not always take place directly but it is mediated by a number
of factors, like the teachers’ perception of the test, the status of the test as well as that
of the subject – matter tested, the macro – context where the examination is used, the
purpose of learning the language in the context, among others.
According to Alderson and Wall (1993), washback refers to the effect that tests
have on teaching and learning. Although it is a widely held notion that washback
exists, we should not consider it an automatic effect of any test or examination
XXI CENTURY RENAISSANCE IN THE PARADIGM OF SCIENCE,
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
19
(Spratt, 2005). Hence, studies suggest that each test or exam (especially high-stake
ones) demands a tailor-made study on boarding multiple stakeholders (such as
teachers and students) to detect its washback effect (Cheng, Andrews & Yu, 2011;
Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Spratt, 2005). Besides, there is a lack of sufficient
evidence to confirm its existence and especially the nature of its effect in the context
of the current study. The author would like to investigate the washback effect in
assessing English Language tests to provide some context that will make it easier to
understand the washback problem either for teachers or students.
Test-related aspects may have an impact at different levels: society, language
courses, people’s attitudes or course materials. The current research examines and
uncovers if there is a washback effect in assessing the tests among teachers and
secondary school students, as well as this work gives the answers to the following
problems, such as the consequences of not having the awareness of the curriculum
studies among secondary school teachers. Therefore, there was a need to study the
cause of the problem based on teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards the
assessment of tests.
Concluding the research on the washback of assessment on English teaching-
learning practices at secondary school in Nukus, Karakalpakstan (Uzbekistan)
requires a robust ethical framework that ensures the well-being of participants,
respects their rights, and maintains the integrity of the research process. The following
ethical framework outlines key principles and guidelines for conducting this research:
1. Respect for Autonomy:
Obtain informed consent from all participants, including teachers, students, and
school administrators. Explain the research purpose, methods, potential risks, and
benefits clearly. Allow participants to make informed decisions about their
involvement and ensure they understand their right to withdraw at any time without
penalty.
2. Beneficence and Non-Maleficence:
Design the research with the intention of contributing positively to English
teaching-learning practices. Ensure that the research aims to improve education and
minimize harm. Consider potential risks, such as emotional discomfort or privacy
concerns, and take steps to mitigate these risks.
3. Privacy and Confidentiality:
Assure participants that their identities and personal information will be kept
confidential. Use pseudonyms or codes to protect their anonymity. Store collected
data securely and limit access to authorized researchers.
4. Cultural Sensitivity:
Respect and consider the cultural norms, values, and sensitivities of participants
in Uzbekistan. Adapt research methods and questions to align with the local context.
5. Voluntary Participation:
Ensure that participation in the research is voluntary and free from any form of
coercion or pressure. Participants should feel comfortable declining or withdrawing
without consequences.
XXI CENTURY RENAISSANCE IN THE PARADIGM OF SCIENCE,
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
20
6. Transparency and Integrity:
Clearly explain the research objectives, methods, and procedures to
participants. Provide accurate and transparent information about the research process.
Report findings honestly and avoid misrepresenting or exaggerating results.
7. Collaboration and Collaboration:
Collaborate with participants and stakeholders in an open and respectful
manner. Value their insights and experiences in shaping the research design and
interpreting findings. Maintain ongoing communication with participants and address
any concerns or questions they may have.
8. Ethical Approval:
Seek ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics
Committee before conducting the research. Adhere to their guidelines and
recommendations.
REFERENCE:
1.
Alderson, J.C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A
study of washback language testing,
13
(3), 280-297.
2.
Alderson, J.C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist?
Applied linguistics
,
14(2), 115
-
129.
3.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991).
Focus on the language classroom
:
An
introduction to classroom research for language teachers
. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
4.
Allwright, R.L. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The
interaction hypothesis. In D.M. Singleton, and D.G. Little (Eds.),
Language learning
in formal and informal contexts
, (pp. 3-18). Dublin: IRAAL.
5.
Andrews, S., & Fullilove, J. (1993). Backwash and the use of English oral
speculations on the impact of a new examination upon sixth form English language
testing in Hong Kong.
New Horizons
,
34
, 46-52.
6.
Andrews, S. (1994). The washback effect of examinations: Its impact upon
curriculum innovation in English language teaching.
Curriculum Forum
,
1
(4), 44
-
58.
7.
Baker, E., Aschbacher, P., Niemi, D., &Sato, E. (1992).
CRESS Performance
assessment models
:
Assessing content area explanations
. Los Angeles: University of
California, Centre for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
8.
Biggs, J.B. (1995). Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational
assessment.
Curriculum Forum
,
4
(2), 1
-
22.
9.
Biggs, J.B. (1993). The quality of teaching and learning in an expanding
tertiary system.
New Horizons
,
34
, 102
-
104.
10.
Blumer, H. (1986).
Symbolic interactionism
:
Perspective and Method
.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
