FRESH PERSPECTIVE

The washback effect

Standardised tests such as Board examinations negatively influence the teaching-

learning processes, says Ravinarayan Chakrakodi, arguing for the overhauling of the
examination system

The impact that tests have on teaching and learning is

called washback. Many research studies reveal that a test
affects participants, processes and products in teaching
and learning. Students, classroom teachers, administrators,
material developers and text book writers may be included
under ‘participants’. Their perceptions and attitudes
towards their work are likely to be affected by a test.
‘Process’ refers to any action taken by the participants
which may contribute to the process of learning. Material
development, syllabus design, changes in teaching
methodology and the use of learning and/or test-taking
strategies are included under processes. ‘Product’ means what is learned (facts, skills,
etc.) and the quality of the learning (fluency, appropriacy, etc.) Tests have an impact on
the learning outcomes as well.

Negative impact

It is widely believed that tests have a negative impact on teaching and learning.
Standardised tests such as Board examinations negatively influence the teaching-learning
processes. Such tests are increasingly determining what is taught, how it is taught, what is
learned, and how it is learned.

For example, the SSLC Board examination in Karnataka is mostly content/textbook

based rather than competency/skills-based. This is truer in the case of language tests,
especially English. The blue print for question paper design suggests 25% for knowledge
type, 39% for comprehension type, 30% for expression type and another 06% for
appreciation type questions (The fact that question paper setters/item writers themselves
find it difficult to differentiate between these types of questions is a different matter!)
It is indeed difficult to evaluate the language learning experience of the learner using this
type of classification. Moreover, nearly 60% of the questions are from the prose, poetry
and supplementary reading parts of the text book. It is most unfortunate that the major
content for the examination is drawn from the text book alone. Above all, the test items
fail to assess the student’s ability to use language for communicative purposes. The items
do not even measure the extent to which students have achieved the course objectives.
Hence, it is neither a proficiency test nor an achievement test.

Skewed testing

The Board examination discussed above tests students’ lower level skills such as the
ability to memorise, the ability to recall facts, etc. at the expense of higher level skills
such as the ability to distinguish between a fact and an opinion, or the ability to organise
ideas using appropriate cohesive devices. As a result of this, what happens is that only
those skills which are tested in the examination get taught in the classroom. Teaching,
thus, becomes textbook-centred and examination-oriented.

Take the case of reading, for instance. Reading is taught in the classroom only through
the prescribed lessons such as prose, poetry and supplementary reading. A variety of
authentic texts such as advertisements, notices, posters, newspapers, magazines,
instruction manuals, etc. are not made use of for developing reading skills precisely
because such materials are not used in the final examination for testing reading. Also,
answers for reading comprehension questions are dictated in the classroom and are
memorised by students. There is hardly any attempt made to develop skimming, scanning
and other sub-skills of reading. Similarly, listening and speaking skills are neglected in
the classroom because these skills are not tested in the examination. Conversation in the
classroom is limited only to questions and answers. Little emphasis is laid on the
systematic teaching of writing skills. Writing is not seen as a form of communication and
students are not encouraged to create their own pieces of writing. All this happens
because of the washback effect of the final examination.

Passive recipients

The washback effect can also be felt on what students learn and how they learn. Students
are not active participants in the language acquisition process. They are passive recipients
of the information given in the prescribed textbooks. Also, the practice of exam-specific
strategies such as familiarisation with the exam format, special coaching, rote learning,
resorting to exam-related published materials, etc. represent a very superficial level of
learning outcome. There are now concerns about the narrowing of the curriculum, lost
instructional time, reduced emphasis on skills that require complex thinking and problem-
solving.

It is also worth mentioning that there are significant differences between the skills
defined within the syllabus and the skills measured by the exam. It is claimed that the
syllabus is based on a communicative approach to language teaching and the objectives
of teaching English are to develop the language skills and to enable students to use the
language for communicative purposes. The final examination, on the other hand, does not
seem to evaluate how far students have achieved those curricular objectives.

Overhaul system

A way forward lies in overhauling the examination system. The change of the public
examination could, to a large extent, change the teachers in their fundamental beliefs and
attitudes about teaching and learning, the roles of teachers and students, and how
teaching and learning should be carried out. This could also change the content of
teaching, the interaction patterns between teachers and students, the way activities are
carried out and the classroom processes.

Changing the examination pattern is not a panacea for all the perils of the system.
However, it is a necessary condition for changing the teaching and learning behaviours of
teachers and students.

Ravinarayan Chakrakodi
Lecturer, Regional Institute of English South India
Bangalore 560 056