Volume 6, Issue 3 (9-2021)
IJREE 2021, 6(3): 21-40 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Izadpanh S, Abdollahi M. The Washback Impacts of Task-based Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning and Grammatical Ability. IJREE 2021; 6 (3)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-522-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-522-en.html
Faculty of Educational Sciences and Art,Islamic Azad University,Zanjan Branch, Iran
Abstract: (2920 Views)
This study was an investigation of the washback impacts of task-based assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning and grammatical ability at the intermediate level. For this purpose, 184 male and female students who were in their third year of school were chosen from 12 schools of (X) (X). This election was done via a multistage cluster random sampling technique using the Cambridge Placement Test (2010). All of the sessions were divided into two parts, 20 minutes were considered for teaching grammar and 20 minutes were for teaching vocabulary. The components of this study were Oxford Practice Grammar Intermediate Diagnostic Test and a standard vocabulary test extracted from TOEFL exams between 2017-2020. The researchers prepared a test for every two groups at the end of every three sessions. It was found that by removing the pre-test factor, the covariance, the task-based evaluation’s washback impact makes the grammatical and vocabulary learning of students better. Considering the reality that every academic endeavor contains planned testing and evaluation techniques to maximize academic achievement and progress, the findings hint that TBLA as an academic measurement device can nicely replace the traditional evaluation techniques.
References
1. Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300304 [DOI:10.1177/026553229601300304]
2. Alderson, L. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 [DOI:10.1093/applin/14.2.115]
3. Alsied, S. M., Ibrahim, N. W., & Pathan, M. M. (2018). The use of grammar learning strategies by Libyan EFL learners at Sebha University. ASIAN TEFL, 3(1), 37-51. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/asiantefl.v1i1.40 [DOI:10.21462/asiantefl.v1i1.40]
4. Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback-A case study. System, 30(2), 207-223. [DOI:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00005-2]
5. Azarian, F., Nourdad, N., & Nouri, N. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners' overall language attainment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 203-208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0601.27 [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0601.27]
6. Bachman, L. F. (1995). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
7. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In J. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667190.015]
9. teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 96-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bokiev, U., & Abd Samad, A. (2021). Washback of an English language assessment system in a Malaysian university foundation programme. The Qualitative Report, 26(2), 555-587. [DOI:10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4349]
11. Brame, C. J., & Biel, R. (2015). Test-enhanced learning: The potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science course. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0208 [DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0208]
12. Çakmak, F., & Erçetin, G. (2018). Effects of gloss type on text recall and incidental vocabulary learning in mobile-assisted L2 listening. ReCALL, 30(1), 24-47. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0958344017000155]
13. Cate, C. (2018). The comparative study of grammar learning mechanisms: Birds as models. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 13-18. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.11.008]
14. Chehrazad, H., & Ajideh, P. (2012). Effects of different response types on X EFL test takers' performance. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 29-50.
15. Clapham, C. (2000). Assessment and testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20(5), 147-161. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.455.4548&rep=rep1&type=pdf [DOI:10.1017/S0267190500200093]
16. Damankesh, M., & Babaii, E. (2015). The washback effect of Iranian high school final examinations on LEARNERS' test-taking and test-preparation strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45, 62-69. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.03.009]
17. Dong, M., Fan, J., & Xu, J. (2021). Differential washback effects of a high-stakes test on students' English learning process: evidence from a large-scale stratified survey in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 3(1), 1-18. [DOI:10.1080/02188791.2021.1918057]
18. Duque Micán, A., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2017). Boosting vocabulary learning through self-assessment in an English language teaching context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 398-414. doi: [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2015.1118433]
19. Eicher, B. L., & Joyner, D. (2021). Components of assessments and grading at scale. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 303-306). [DOI:10.1145/3430895.3460165]
20. Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A., & Birjandi, F. (1995). Testing language skills from theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT.
21. Gebril, A. (2018). Integrated‐skills assessment. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-7. doi: [DOI:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0544]
22. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press.
23. Goldstein, H., Ziolkowski, R. A., Bojczyk, K. E., Marty, A., Schneider, N., Harpring, J., & Haring, C. D. (2017). Academic vocabulary learning in first through third grade in low-income schools: Effects of automated supplemental instruction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(11), 3237-3258. doi: [DOI:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0100]
24. Green, A. (2003). Test impact and English for academic purposes: A comparative study in backwash between IELTS preparation and university pre-sessional courses. Unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Research in Testing, Evaluation and Curriculum in ELT, University of Surrey, Roehampton.
25. Inger, M. (1993). Authentic assessment in secondary education, IEE BRIEF. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365711
26. Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: LEARNERS' and teachers' beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492. [DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x]
27. Kafipour, R., Jafari, S., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). The effect of task-based instruction on L2 grammar learning and motivation of Iranian EFL learners' junior high school LEARNERS. Revista Publicando, 5(16), 769-795.
28. Kermad, A., & Kang, O. (2018). Effect of classroom assessment stakes on English language learners' oral performance. TESOL Journal, 10(2). doi: [DOI:10.1002/tesj.392]
29. Kessler, M., Solheim, I., & Zhao, M. (2021). Can task‐based language teaching be "authentic" in foreign language contexts? Exploring the case of China. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 1-16. [DOI:10.1002/tesj.534]
30. Knight, S. (2020). Augmenting Assessment with Learning Analytics. In: Bearman M., Dawson P., Ajjawi R., Tai J., Boud D. (eds) Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world. The enabling power of assessment, vol 7. Springer, Cham. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_10]
31. Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-463. [DOI:10.2307/326879]
32. Lam, R. (2018). Processes in portfolio development journey. In Portfolio Assessment for the Teaching and Learning of Writing (pp. 29-42). Springer, Singapore. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-1174-1_3]
33. Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy: Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(2), 168-182. [DOI:10.1080/15434303.2019.1692347]
34. Liu, H., & Brantmeier, C. (2019). I know English: Self-assessment (SA) of foreign language (FL) reading and writing abilities among young Chinese learners of English. System, 80, 60-72. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2018.10.013]
35. Loch, A. (2010). How do test methods affect reading comprehension test performance? In Kovács, P., Szép, K. Katona, T. (Szerk.). Proceedings of the Challenges for Analysis of the Economy, the Businesses, and Social Progress International Scientific Conference. (pp. 924-935).
36. Lyle, C., Rowland, M., Ostrovski, G., & Dabney, W. (2021). On The effect of auxiliary tasks on representation dynamics. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 1-9). PMLR.
37. Ma, H. (2021). Washback effects of the IELTS test: views and experiences of Chinese students in the context of a Sino-UK joint programme with English as the medium of instruction. Doctoral dissertation, Queen's University Belfast.
38. McKinley, J., & Thompson, G. (2018). Washback effect in teaching English as an international language. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-12. doi: [DOI:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0656]
39. McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18(4), 333-350. [DOI:10.1177/026553220101800402]
40. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Milne, A. E., Petkov, C. I., & Wilson, B. (2018). Auditory and visual sequence learning in humans and monkeys using an artificial grammar learning paradigm. Neuroscience, 389, 104-117. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.06.059]
42. Morris, S. B. (2016). Using non-traditional testing methods to identify talent and potential in early childhood (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
43. Morrow, C. K. (2018). Communicative language testing. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 12, 1-7. doi: [DOI:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0383]
44. Nazari, M., Bayati, A., & Rajabi, P. (2021). The washback effect of task-based assessment on the Iranian EFL learners' development of pragmatic competence. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9(34), 177-189. http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/article_677957.html
45. Pitoyo, M. D. (2020). Gamification-based assessment: The washback effect of quizizz on students' learning in higher education. International Journal of Language Education, 4(1), 1-10. [DOI:10.26858/ijole.v4i2.8188]
46. Rauch, D., & Hartig, J. (2010). Multiple-choice versus open-ended response formats of reading test items: A two-dimensional IRT analysis. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4), 354-379. http://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/fileadmin/download/ptam/4-2010_20101218/02_Rauch.pdf
47. Reynolds, B. L., Shih, Y. C., & Wu, W. H. (2018). Modeling Taiwanese adolescent learners' English vocabulary acquisition and retention: The washback effect of the College entrance examination center's reference word list. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 47-59. https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/9951973.pdf [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2018.08.001]
48. Safa, M. A., & Jafari, F. (2017). The washback effect of dynamic assessment on grammar learning of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 55-68. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.393 [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.393]
49. Salehi, H., & Yunus, M. M. (2012). The washback effect of the Iranian universities entrance exam: Teachers' insights. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 609-628. https://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/630
50. Salma, N., & Prastikawati, E. F. (2021). Performance-based assessment in the English learning process: washback and barriers. Getsempena English Education Journal, 8(1), 164-176. [DOI:10.46244/geej.v8i1.1305]
51. Sattar, W., Abdullah, M. R. T. L. B., & Mirzaei, F. (2018). A FAHP approach to select students' performance assessment criteria in task-based English language teaching. In SHS Web of Conferences, 53, 1-6. doi: [DOI:10.1051/shsconf/20185303005]
52. Sert, O., & Amri, M. (2021). Learning potentials afforded by a film in task‐based language classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 126-141. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12684]
53. Sharafi, M., & Sardareh, S. A. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL LEARNERS' L2 grammar learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 102-120. http://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/291
54. Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language Testing, 13(3), 298-317. doi: [DOI:10.1177/026553229601300305]
55. Spierings, M. J., & ten Cate, C. (2016). Budgerigars and zebra finches differ in how they generalize in an artificial grammar learning experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 3977-3984. doi: [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1600483113]
56. Sumera, A., Barua, A., & Navamoney, A. (2015). Exploring the effect of backwash in first year medical LEARNERS and comparison with their academic performances. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 491-495. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.693]
57. Talebzadeh, Z., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Effects of sentence making, composition writing and cloze test assignments on vocabulary learning of pre-intermediate EFL students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 258-261. doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p257 [DOI:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p257]
58. Tayeb, Y. A., Aziz, M. S. A., & Ismail, K. (2018). Predominant washback of the general secondary English examination on teachers. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.21), 448-456. https://www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/ijet/article/view/17211 [DOI:10.14419/ijet.v7i3.21.17211]
59. Taylor, L. (2005). Washback and impact. ELT Journal, 59(2), 154-155. doi:10.1093/eltj/cci030 [DOI:10.1093/eltj/cci030]
60. Tollefsen, K. E., Scholz, S., Cronin, M. T., Edwards, S. W., de Knecht, J., Crofton, K., & Patlewicz, G. (2014). Applying adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) to support integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 70(3), 629-640. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.09.009]
61. Valette, R. (1977). Modern language testing (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
62. Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13(1), 318-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300306 [DOI:10.1177/026553229601300306]
63. Zarei, A., & Neya, S. S. (2014). The effect of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse-oriented activities on short and long-term L2 reading comprehension. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 1(1), 29-39. https://ijllnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_1_June_2014/4.pdf [DOI:10.17722/jell.v1i1.1]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
