Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luxia, Q.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test

Qi Luxia

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, qiluxia{at}hotmail.com

High-stakes tests are often used as agents for change, but ‘attempts to introduce change in the classroom are often not as effective as their designers hoped they would be’ (Wall, 1996: 334). The National Matriculation English Test (NMET) in China is such a case. Apart from its primary function of selecting candidates for institutions of higher education, the NMET was designed specifically to promote changes in ELT (English language teaching) in schools. Unfortunately, it has fallen short of the goal. This study set out to examine the reasons why the NMET failed to bring about the intended changes or washback effects. For this purpose, data were collected through interview and questionnaire from 8 NMET constructors, 6 English inspectors, 388 teachers and 986 students. The results show that the most important reason for the test failing to achieve the intended washback is that its two major functions - the selection function and the function of promoting change - are in many ways in conflict with each other, making it a powerful trigger for teaching to the test but an ineffective agent for changing teaching and learning in the way intended by its constructors and the policymakers.

Language Testing, Vol. 22, No. 2, 142-173 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532205lt300oa
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Liying Cheng
The key to success: English language testing in China
Language Testing, January 1, 2008; 25(1): 15 - 37.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Jianda
Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners
Language Testing, July 1, 2007; 24(3): 391 - 415.
[Abstract] [PDF]