Washback analysis

Gregory Sommer

Washback or backwash, the terms are used more or less interchangeably, is defined as the influence of testing on teaching and learning. On the one hand this suggests an investigation of washback in the light of tasks and their relationship to a curriculum, more importantly though a look at test/teaching tasks and their relationship to the target language use domain. As an example a speaking task (dialogue) was chosen from smart 4 (BV). The task is found in the try it out section (p. 23) at the end of lesson one covering the topic New York City. It is set up as a communicative task where the participants have to play a role and are assigned a certain set of convictions. As the argumentative points assigned to the roles are not very specific the interlocutors are free to use a lot of self-generated language. This has the potential of leading students into producing spontaneous speech and therefore into a form of communication that cannot be planned or rehearsed. ITEM Interlocutor: A, your teacher offers you a trip to Los Angeles, USA, in the summer holiday. You have always wanted to go to LA. Your parents are not sure about it and dont want to let you go. Talk to your mum/dad and discuss the problem. Your arguments: a rare chance your English will get better you will work to earn some money most of your school friends are going

B, your daughter/son wants to go to Los Angeles, US, with her/his teacher. You are not happy about it. Discuss the problem with your daughter/son. Your arguments: very expensive daughter/son too young a family holiday in London would be better family cant have a nice holiday, no money

Overlap, intensity and direction of washback Since the introduction of the new curriculum and the educational standards in Austria the teaching and learning goals for lower secondary schools are no longer isolated linguistic features but competences that are described in a holistic way. The descriptors for the standards stem from the common European framework of languages, which describe the target language use domain (TLU) in terms of communicative abilities at different levels. To this effect Green says, Ultimately, then, the key relationship determining the direction of washback is not that between test and curriculum, but that between both test and curriculum and the construct to which they are directed... Arguments over washback direction are, at root, variations on arguments over construct definition. (Green p. 13)

For this task two descriptors apply. An Gesprchen teilnehmen: Descriptor 3: Kann in einem Gesprch (z.B. Gruppengesprch in der Klasse) Zustimmung uern bzw. widersprechen und andere Vorschlge machen. (A2+) Desriptor 5: Kann in einfachen Worten die eigenen Ansichten, Plne und Absichten uern und begrnden (B1)

At face value the Standards descriptors seem to fit perfectly. Nevertheless, the descriptors do not define the construct of the Standards test. To find these one must consult the technical handbook of the E8 speaking test. The test construct for spoken competencies in the Austrian Standards are defined as follows. The construct of the speaking test comprises the communicative competence demonstrated in an appropriate response to the task, the adequate use of devices that create coherence and cohesion characteristic of oral communication, and turntaking (task achievement & communicative skills). Moreover, it includes the ability to produce clear and natural speech by using standard pronunciation and stress and by producing fluent utterances (clarity & naturalness of speech). Additionally, it takes account of the general linguistic control demonstrated in the choice of vocabulary that is accurate and has a certain range and the adequate use of a range of grammatical structures reflecting the nature of grammar in unplanned speech. Mewald, Gassner & Sigott (2009) In this case, it seems, that the construct of the task and the specifications of the standards are very much aligned, which would argue for a strong overlap of focal construct and test design characteristic with a direction of positive washback. In fact this task could probably be used as a test item in a Standard testing with almost no alterations. But washback in not solely determined by an alignment of test and task construct, which ideally best serve the TLU, but also by the way test takers perceive the nature, face validity and height of stakes associated with a test. To this aspect Green says, There is controversy, however, as to whether test design alone is responsible for the direction of washback. In addition to test format and content, it has been argued that test use and test stakes, or the

(perceived) consequences of test scores will also affect the direction of washback. (Green p. 14) Most importantly, a positive washback effect of this task can be seen in its authentic and communicative nature. Classroom behaviour of teachers and learners will move towards the learning goals of the new curriculum. With tasks like these the focus on teaching and learning speaking is shifted towards spoken interactions that do not focus on isolated patterns but towards communicative needs based on information gaps, which are the only thing real communication rests on or as Green puts it, The desire to relate tests more closely to valued classroom behaviours has been a major objective of the movement towards communicative testing, intended to support and reflect communicative teaching. (Green p. 12)