Professional Documents
Culture Documents
testing to teaching
Luke Prodromou
Test:
'Teach' and 'test' are quite close together in a dictionary, but in testing we
do different things from the things we do when we teach. This article
assesses the concept of 'backwash' in language teaching, looks at the
consequences of testing on teaching in a broad educational context, and
suggests that 'negative backwash' makes good language teaching more
difficult. The two processes of testing and teaching are considered to be
necessary but distinct. A system is described for distinguishing between
them which is then applied to developing classroom activities for
examination preparation classes, to help teachers move from testing to
teaching procedures.
What is the
backwash effect?
13
The Professional neglect of the backwash effect (what it is, how it operates,
consequences of and its consequences) is one of the main reasons why new methods often
backwash fail to take root in language classes. Many teachers, trapped in an
examination preparation cycle, feel that communicative and humanistic
methodologies are luxuries they cannot afford. When the market calls on
teachers and institutions to produce quantifiable results, it usually means
good examination results. Sound teaching practices are often sacrificed in
an anxious attempt to 'cover' the examination syllabus, and to keep ahead
of the competition. In summary, 'negative backwash', as experienced by
the learner, means language learning in a stressful, textbook-bound
environment.
The value of It goes without saying that tests and examinationsat the right time, in
testing the right proportionshave a valuable contribution to make in assessing
learners' proficiency, progress, and achievement. As a device for
diagnosing learners' errors, and for defining the interlanguage of
individuals and groups of learners, they are indispensable. Tests are also
the simplest and most effective form of extrinsic motivation, of imposing
discipline on the most unruly class, and of ensuring attention as well as
regular attendance. Because they are closely bound up with classroom
authority, tests invariably lead to teacher-centred lessons, especially
where the teacher is inexperienced or insecure.
Uses and abuses Abuse of testing occurs when tests invade essential teaching space, when
of testing they are not the final stage of a process of learning but become the
beginning, middle, and end of the whole process. Testing may be a short
cut to extrinsic motivation, but constant resort to it is an admission of the
teacher's failure to make intrinsic motivation work. In the long run, it will
demotivate the learner.
Overt backwash The backwash effect can be overt or covert. In its overt forms, it usually
Luke Prodromou
Covert backwash
15
Lead-ins and follow-ups have become standard teaching devices (see Peck
1988: 201, where he refers to them as 'heads and tails'). The pedagogic
rationale of a lead-in is to arouse interest and draw on the students'
knowledge, thereby making learning 'easier'. By drawing a personal
response from students, a follow-up will help fix or anchor the new input in
the learners' memories. A good teacher maximises the learners' chance of
success by pre-teaching vocabulary, and doing pre-Jistening and prereading tasks to motivate learners, activate their past experience, and draw
on their potential for more effective learning strategies. This approach
could not be more in contrast to the standard ritual in classroom tests and
public examinations, where the teacher simply gives out the papers, and
instructs students to 'get on with it' in silence.
16
Asking questions
In overt tests, the teacher or the examiners ask a lot of questions, but
students taking public examinations, for instance, are expressly
discouraged from doing so, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In
covert testing, too, the teacher asks a lot of questions, while the students
are not given much opportunity to ask questions (of the teacher or each
other). A teaching procedure, on the other hand, allows students to
exercise the power of asking questions; question-asking is accepted as an
assertion of personality that can give a boost to self-confidence. It is
symptomatic of the psychology of conventional testing that questions are
discouraged, and worrying to note how often teaching mimics the monointerrogative mode of public examination, with parallel systems of
teacher authority and student submissiveness.
Denying learners'
thinking time
Penalizing error Testing values correct answers, and penalizes error. But in teaching we
should be as interested in the process by which students arrive at the
wrong answer as we are in the correct answer itself. Holt (1964: 142-3)
described how the process of 'only the right answer' ignores the stage
individual students have reached in their learning, and imposes on them
models of performance based on the 'good' learners in the class. In
testing, the good learner is a yardstick by which all students are measured;
in teaching, the student is his or her own yardstick. This is important:
covert testing occurs whenever we do not give individuals their own space
and time to answer questions; it is in subtle, invisible ways like this that
we set up students to fail. Failure may be an inevitable feature of the
discrimination required in testing procedures, and the classroom
hierarchies this leads to; in teaching, however, discrimination in the
negative sense has no placefor the good language teacher, success in
tests should be as routine as failure.
Some learners need more thinking time than others, but conventional
testing conditions impose a strict time limit on the production of
knowledge. It is not uncommon to hear of highly intelligent people who
have failed public examinations because of time constraints, or an
inability to adapt their learning style to examination conditions.
In denying learners essential thinking time teachers often unconsciously
recreate these conditions; it is a great temptation to accept a correct
answer from the quicker students and move on to the next question. Not
giving students the time they need to prepare and process language, either
in whole-class work or in pairs, creates anxiety, even panic, and therefore
errorteacher-induced error. The strict time limits of formal tests can
produce error in the same way.
Many teachers tend to move closer to the student they have asked to
answer a question, and to fix their gaze on this student as they wait for the
answer they have in mind. This proximity of teacher and nominated
student tends to exclude the rest of the class; the teacher's body language,
almost invites the non-participants, to 'switch off and talk amongst
themselves, which they often do, till the teacher turns to them in search of
the next correct answer.
Denying learners A powerful visual message is also conveyed by the way desks are
communication arranged in the classroom. In testing, the desks are invariably arranged in
straight lines with a space between them large enough to deter students
from communicating with each other. Communication between students
in a test is thus both implictly and explicitly forbidden.
In teaching, by contrast, we encourage sharing and communication by
arranging desks in a semi-circular or group formation. These are familiar
dichotomies. Yet how many teachers go into a classroom for an ordinary
lesson where the desks have already been laid out in linear fashion and leave
them exactly as they are, even though a horse-shoe or group arrangement is
possible? The learners are thus given an unspoken but powerful message
about the teacher's methodological assumptions; what in teaching we would
call 'caring and sharing', in testing becomes 'cheating'.
The way we use space in class is as important as the texts we choose and
the methodology we adopt in presenting them. An arrangement of desks,
appropriate in the context of objective assessment, when transferred to
everyday teaching, may obstruct the process of learning.
Inflation of teacher Testing, overt and covert is, as Fabian (1982: 24) has argued, a
authority paternalistic, teacher-centred business: 'Examinationslike democratic
institutionsdo not thrive in isolation. When the consumer and the
The backwash effect: testing and teaching
17
The proxemics of Covert testing routines are often accompanied and reinforced by the
covert testing teacher's approach to classroom management. The use of space is one
important dimension of the management of groups. Teachers can teach
badly, not because of the methods or techniques they have adopted, but
through mismanagement of space.
In Table 1,1 summarize what I feel are the most important characteristics
of the teaching and testing processes.
The features listed under 'Testing' are those we normally associate with
the backwash effect, with the addition of what I have referred to as covert
symptoms of backwash. While most public examinations and tests, often
against the testers' wishes, encourage attitudes to learning summed up
under Testing, it should be said that a number of recent public
examinations have tried to counter negative backwash by basing more of
their material on authentic sources, and reducing the number of
decontextualized sentences. Discrete item testing (knowledge of
individual points of language) is balanced with global testing (successful
use of more than one language skill in more extensive chunks of text). In
addition, the testing of speaking has become a more important feature,
and has been made more natural and communicative. It is also refreshing
to see some examining bodies insist on the use of dictionaries in the
examination room: in real life, students would not be isolated from such
useful resources, so why should the examination not allow this? However,
the backwash effect remains predominantly negative and encourages a
model of learning summed up in the left-hand column of Table 1.
(Broadly speaking, the two approaches described correspond to left and
right brain learningsee, for example, Gerngross and Puchta, 1992.
I would like now to discuss in more detail some of the characteristics
listed in Table 1.
Failure and Tests are designed to discriminate proficiency, progress, and achievement.
success Indeed, some tests would be regarded as inefficient if all candidates
enjoyed equal success. This is innocent enough, and, in administrative
terms, very useful. It does, however, tend to encourage a view of students
as 'good' or 'bad', 'strong' or 'weak'. Such a classification may be the
first step towards a fatalism that assumes some students are born to fail
and others are 'natural' language learners. The victim of this Manichaean
view of the classroom world is usually the so-called 'bad' learner, who is
18
Luke Prodromou
Table 1
Testing
Teaching
tasks
success
Marks versus
achievement
19
strength
learning from error
achievement
confidence
pleasure
learner independence
learner input
support (from teacher and peer group)
rapport
the group, co-operation
personalization
sensitivity to learners
text
whole texts
content
culture-sensitive
lead-in, follow-up
humour
interest
intrinsic motivation
process
Anxiety versus
pleasure
Luke Prodromou
Textbook input Anxiety about covering the examination syllabus means teachers are
versus learner afraid to take risks with material not manifestly related to the
input examination; students may also become impatient with material which
does not seem to be in the form of examination practice. This has multiple
consequences: textbook and teacher input are the order of the day, and the
material chosen may be irrelevant to learners' personal needs or culture;
even when the material is potentially interesting it is not taught for content
but for form, as this serves the narrow requirements of examination
preparation.
Product and
The two methods of imparting language that I have referred to as testing
process
and teaching differ in one overarching essential: the first focuses almost
exclusively on the product (the language to be taught), while the second
aims to make the process of imparting language both interesting and
fulfilling. In the former, the learner's potential, both linguistic and
personal, is downgraded; in the latter, it is encouraged. The obsession
with the linguistic product, and the sacrifice of rich pedagogic processes,
is usually accompanied by cries of 'We don't have time', 'I mustfinishthe
book', 'Cover the syllabus', etc. Preoccupation with the end-product
obscures the importance in language teaching of two factors mentioned
earlier: classroom management and rapport. If the examination syllabus
and its accompanying exercise types are the destination for many
teachers, the process by which they reach that destination is the journey: I
have been arguing that this journey, which depends so much on good
management and rapport, should be both enjoyable and educationally
satisfying.
Transferring
testing
procedures to
teaching
procedures
Tests and examinations are not going to go away; the product, both
linguistic and commercial, will continue to be packaged, marketed, and
sold. Any suggestions one makes concerning the transfer from testing
procedures to teaching procedures must take this fact of educational life
into account. The examples I give in the final part of this paper are based
on exercise types commonly used in examinations. I will try to show how
the most unpromising testing material might be made into a more
challenging vehicle of personal expression, without the teacher having to
abandon the book or the syllabus.
The overall principle behind the techniques described below is the shift
from teacher control to student control. The tasks will therefore involve
the use of learner input, which I feel is a key element in transforming
negative into positive backwash and in making examination preparation
more of an educational activity than it is at present in most examination
classes.
The backwash effect: testing and teaching
21
Luke Prodromou
(ii) Students rewrite the test items to reflect their personal views, using
the textbook or testbook as a guide. Thus, if an original sentence in
the test says 'Stamp collecting is the most enjoyable hobby I know',
students can replace either the subject or the adjective with items of
their choice. Students may also replace impersonal or 'non-existent'
subjects such as 'he', 'she', or 'John', with the names of friends,
people in the class, members of their family, or famous people, or
make the sentence interesting or amusing in any way they wish. The
objective in each case is to make the utterly forgettable original
sentence become memorable in some way.
Table 2
Males
Females
(i) The class form into two teams. A student in team X 'serves' the first
half of a pair of transformation sentences, for example by saying
'India is the country I would like to visit more than any other.'
23
(ii) A student from team Y serves the sentence back in the form of an
appropriate transformation, using the stem provided in the book: The
country (I would like to visit more than any other is India). Team Y
scores if the transformation is correct.
1 When you ask the class a question, allow the 'weaker' students some
thinking timedo not make question and answer routine a race to the
right answer.
2 Do not stand too close to the student who is answering the question,
thereby excluding the rest of the class: use space and distance to create
an inclusive, group feeling.
24
Luke Prodromou
3 When you get a 'right' answer do not just move on to the next item:
ask other students 'Do you agree?', 'What have you got?' Do not
reveal the right answer too soon. The process is as important as the
product.
25
References
Richards, J. C. 1990. The Language Teaching
Alderson, C. and D. Wall. 1993. 'Does washback
Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. 1987. 'What the 'good language learner'
exist?' Applied Linguistics 14/2: 115-29.
Fabian, P. 1982. 'Examinations: why tolerate their
can teach us'. TESOL Quarterly 9/1:41-51.
paternalism?' in J. B. Heaton (ed.) Language Seaton, B. 1982. A Handbook of English Language
Testing. London: Modern English Publications.
Teaching Terms and Practice. London: Macmillan.
Gerngross, G. and H. Puchta. 1992. Creative Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of
Grammar Practice. London: Longman.
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language
Press.
Teaching. London: Longman.
Wenden, A. 1987. 'How to be a good language
Heaton, J. D. 1990. Writing English Language Tests. learner' in A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds.) Learner
London: Longman.
Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood
Holt, J. 1964. How Children Fail. Harmondsworth:
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Penguin.
Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A History of English The author
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Luke Prodromou works for The British Council in
Press.
Greece. He has been involved in training teachers for
Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. the DTEFLA and DOTE and is an assessor/moderator
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
for these schemes. He has also been a member of the
Peck, A. 1988. Language Teachers at Work. London: UCLES CTEFLA Scheme Committee and the team
Prentice Hall.
working on the new Cambridge Integrated Language
Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. The Training Schemes (CILTS). He is the author of Mixed
Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Ability Classes (Macmillan) and several textbooks for
London: Longman.
examination classes.