You are on page 1of 13

The backwash effect: from

the
ons.

oral
la8e
testing to teaching
:in
la8e Luke prodromou
{viv

l the
:ds.)
The
3lish Teach: lf you teach someone something you give them instructions so
they know about it or how to do it; you make them think, feel or act
lslve in a new or different way; you explain or show students how to do
ols'.
something. (Collins' COBU lLD Dictiona ry].
tof Test: To find out how much someone knows by asking them questions.
,a8e
(Longman's Active Study Dicti ona ryl.
age
'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 artcle
assesses the concept of'backwash' in language teaching, looks at the
consequences of testing on teaching in a broad educational context, and
ics suggests that'negative backwash' makes good language teaching more
in
nd
difficult. The two processes of testing and teaching are considered to be
in necessary but distinct. A system is described for distinguishing between
them which s then applied to developing classroom activities for
rd examination preparation classes, to help teachers move from testng to
of teaching procedures.
t!,
rd
rd what is the The backwash effect can be defined as the direct or indirect effect of
backwash effect? examinations on teaching methods. According to the effect of
examinations on what we do in the classroom we may refer to 'positive'
and 'negative' backwash (Heaton l990: l70, Hughes l989: l). Although
it is an important factor in classrooms wherever examinations play a
dominant role in the educational process, it has not been fully explored. It
is not mentioned in the indcx to such standard ELT handbooks as sterrt
(l983), Howatt (l984). or Hanrrer (l99l), and reference books such as
Richards et al. (l985) and Seaton ( l982) do not corrsider it worthy of an
entry. Heaton ( l990) and Hughcs ( l989) discuss, rather sketchily, wlrat I
refer to as 'overt' backlvash (see below). but do not explore the broader
educational implications ol' 'co\,crt' backwash. The nrost thorough
treatlnent oi'the cottcept ol'backwaslr is that ol Alderson and Wall ( l993).
*,lro suggest that'washback'as tlrey call it, is nlore complex than has
hitherto beerr assunred. They makc the valid point that thele is no otle-to-
one relationship between tests. good or bad, and tlreir efl'ect on tlre
classroonr. In their view. bebre a test has any inrpact orr classrocltrr
practice it is nrediated by f actors such as the place ol' exanritlatiotts iIt
particular societies, the teacher's competence, and tlre resources available
within the school system.
ELT Journal |blunrc 49l l .lunuury l995@ O.rJord Unilersitt, Prcss l995 l3

EF^.-., ,"
i "" :,"q,1.s!r.?l!ffiqr,.w,?ry l
t
l
I
I
I

Whether the backwash effect is positive or negative, how it operates in


I
I
I
particular contexts-indeed, whether it exists at all_must be explored
'
l
, .,l mpirically. Many of the assumptions about backwash are untested and
. ,:', ,.:,' , l
-'.-:.'-:._._-:_ ]
simplistic. Alderson and Wall (l993) point out that very little observation
ofthe effect has been carried out, and that what evidence there is points to
a: -'- ],;.,]_._-,.. J
, ,. :: ' -:'-, l. {

l the highly complex nature of the process.


!
Bearing these words of caution in mind, it might be useful to provide a
I brief background to the description of backwash put forward in this
article. I have been involved in examinations at several levels: as a
I

i
teacher, trainer, examiner, and writer of tests and examination-related
materials. The backwash effect described here is based on my observation
of examination classes in the private and public sectors, over a period of
twenty years, in a society (Greece) where examinations play a very
significant role.

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 nrethods 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 e-raminalion results. Sound teaching practices are oien 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 larrguage learnirrg in a stressful, textbook-bouncl
environment.

The value of It goes without saying that tests and examinations-at the right time, in
testing the right proportions-have a valuable contribution to make in assessing
learners' proficiency, progress, and achievement, As a device for
diagnosing learners' eTors, and for definin_e the interlanguage of
irrdividuals and groups of learners, they are indispensable. Tests are also
tlre simplest and most e fective folm of extrinsic nrotivatiorr. of imposin_e
discipline on the most unruly class, and of ensuring attention as well its
regular attendance. Because they are closely bound up rvitlr classroom
authority, tests invariably lead to teacher-centred lessons. especially
whcre the teacher is inexperienced or insecure.

uses and abuses Abuse of testing occurs when tests invacle esse rrtial teachirrg space, when
of testing they are not the final stage o1 a process tll' learning but beconre the
begirrning, nriddle. artd end o1'thc rvho|e pr()cess. Testing nlay be a short
cut to c.\/,i/l.sic ntotivation. but cotrslar]t resort to it is an adnrission of tlre
teacher's t'ailure to nrake inrinsit,l1,1otivirtitl11 w,ork. ln the lorlg rurr. it rvill
derrrotivate thc learner.

Overt backwash J'lrc backwirsh cff'ect carr be ovct,t or covert. ln its overt ttlntts, it usuall1,
nlcans dtling a lot ol'past papers in class as preparation for att exanrinatiorr:
il rrrav involvc rcpliclttine. 1iom past papers or the textbook. the exercise-
i] l.ukt l>rtnlrtltttttt
ll

I types favoured in the particular examination students will be taking:


t multiple-choice, transformation, or gap-filling. The methodological routine
t that results from the negative backwash effect in its overt forms is an all too
1 familiar one: presenation of e text followed by questions similar to those
) in e examination. This 'text + questions' formula is a crude mirror-image
of what happens in most conventional examinations.

1 Other hallmarks of the backwash effect include the use of fragments of


l (often inauthentic) language, a concentration on word- and sentence-level
t
, linguistic features, and a focus on skills which in terms of administration
l and marking are easier to test. This is why reading and writing tend to be
given much more emphasis in classrooms than speaking and listening.

This kind of overt backwash is usually negative, but there is no reason


why we should not have tests which adopt techniques more in line with
communicative and, to some extent, humanistic teaching. Fortunately, it
seems that most examination boards are aware of the problem, and are
taking steps to tip the balance in favour of positive backwash. It is possible
for testing procedures to have a positive effect on classroom practice. For
example, when one of the examination boards introduced a listening test
based on audio-cassette material (to replace the texts read aloud by an
examination supervisor), this had the effect of heightening awareness of
what authentic listening involves, and schools quickly began to prepare
students to cope with the new challenges.

Covert backwash The explicit consequences of the backrvash effect are easily identifiable.
The implicit consequences are more elusive, and more disturbing. Even if
examination boards reduced the number of boring multiple_choice
exercises, the examination class would still be in conflict with the
teacher's desire to teach communicatively and humanistically. This is
because covert testing will always be with us. It is a deep-seated, often
unconscious process, which reflects unexamined assumptions about a
wide range of pedagogic principles: horv people learn, the relationship
between learner and teacher, the nature of teacher authority, the
itrrportance of correction, the balance between form and content, the role
of classroonl management, and so on.
Basically. covert testing amour]ts to teaching a textbock :: it' it were a
csbook.Usually the teacher is not full1, aware of this process: in his or
her mind there is a clear dividing line between a lesson which involves
tcachirrg and one rvhich involves testing. I anr using the latter ternr irr a
specific scnse rvhich includes both overt and covert backwash eft'ects.
Stlntc r'xatrrples of covert testirrg will shorv what I mean. I have observed
trtarty lcssons where the teacher asks a question, receives a corTect answer
|'rotrt a particular student, and then moves on to ask the next student the
next question. The objective of this routine is to find out what the students
know. This. ancl the lack of involvemetrt of the rest of the class in the
sequence. makes thc activity trrore of an infomlal a.c..rrl(,rl than a
tcucltitt3 proccclure. The absence of an;, lead-irr or bllow-up to tlre work
doIte on it tcxt is entirely typical of testing procedures.
'l'ltc ba<,kwu.rlt L,|'|'ct t. ttstitti4 ttnl tt,ucltitt.q 1.5
{

I
I
Irad-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 e students'
I

l
I
knowledge, thereby making leaming 'easier'. By drawing a personal
,:::]-1l
response from students, a follow-up will help fix or anchor the new input in
"]
a - j'::t
the leamers' memories. A good teacher maximises the leamers' chance of
success by pre-teaching vocabulary, and doing pre-listening and pre-
reading tasks to motivate leamers, activate their past experience, and draw
on their potential for more effective leaming 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.

Penalizing error Testing values correct answers, and penalizes erTor. 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' leamers 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
discrinrirration required in testing procedures, and the classroom
hierarchies this leads to; in teaching, however, discrimination in the
negative sense has no place-for the good language teacher, success in
tests should be as routine as failure.

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 testin_s, 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
synlptonratic of the psychclcg1, t'conventional testing that questions are
discouraged, and worryin.q i noic how trfien teaching mimics the mono-
interrogative mode of public examination, with parallel systems of
teaclrcr authority and student submissiveness.

Denying learners' In covert testing less able learners are penalized by the collective
thinking tinle asstrtrrption that the objcctive of teaclrer questions is to elicit the ri_eht
ilns\l,er in the shortest possible time. Thus, good students shout out the
ans\\,ers. put their hancls up irst, ill in the pauses created by 'slower'
lcarncrs searchin_e for tlrc. right answer. Tcstirrg ablrors pauses, which it lnl
cr, as a vacuulTl rather tlran a necessary space in which students find their
orr lr lcvel.

l(l l:tit prtllrtlnlltt


see Peck Some learners need more thinking time than others, but conventional
)dagogic testing conditions impose a strict time limit on the production of
itudentS' knowledge. It is not uncommon to hear of highly intelligent people who
personal have failed public examinations because of time constraints, or an
,input in
inability to adapt their learning style to examination conditions.
hance of
rnd pre- In denying learners essential thinking time teachers often unconsciously
md draw recreate these conditions; it is a great temptation to accept a correct
rpproach answer from the quicker students and move on to the next question. Not
tests and
giving students the time they need to prepare and process language, either
lers, and in whole-class work or in pairs, creates anxiety, even panic, and therefore
error-teacher-induced error, The strict time limits of formal tests can
produce error in the same way.
:hing we
ze at the The proxemics of Covert testing routines are often accompanied and reinforced by the
: 142-3) covert testing teacher's approach to classroom management. The use of space is one
he Stage important dimension of the management of groups. Teachers can teach
on them badly, not because of the methods or techniques they have adopted, but
class. In through mismanagement of space.
easured; Many teachers tend to move closer to the student they have asked to
1portant: answer a question, and to fix their gaze on this student as they wait for the
$/n space answer they have in mind. This proximity of teacher and nominated
this that student tends to exclude the rest ofthe class; the teacher's body language,
re of the almost invites the non-participants, to 'switch off' and talk amongst
Iassroonr thenlselves, wlrich they often do, till the teacher turns to them in search of
,n in the the next correct answer.
rccess in
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 ,i
ions, but straight lirres with a space between them large enough to deter students l
:xpressly from communicating with each other. Communication between students {
,
ances. In in a test is thus both implictly and explicitly forbidden. i
students
r or each In teaching, by contrast, we encourage sharing and communication by
ldents to ananging desks in a semi-circular or group formation. These are 'arniliar
)ted aS an
dichotonries. 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
nce. It is
;tions are thenr exactly as they are, even though a horse-shoe or group aTangement is
possible-? The learners are thus given an unspoken but powerful message
le mono-
Stems of liirr-rut tlte teacher's lr]ethodological assumptions; what irr teaching rve would
call 'caring and sharing', irr testing becomes 'cheating'.

The wa1, wc use space irr class is as important as the texts we cl-toosc atrd
:ollective the nlethodologv we adopt in presenting them. An arrangement o'dcsks.
the right appropriate in the context of objective assessment, when tratrs'erreci to
]t out the ever),dav tcaclrirrc, may obstruct the process of leanring.
'slorver'
. which it lnflation of teacher Testin_c. ovcrt and covert is, as Fabian (l982: 24) has arguecl, a
ind their authoritY paternalistic. tcacher-centred business: 'Examinations-like clerrrocratic
institutions--do lrot thrive in isolation. when the consulller and the
Thc lruckttuslt (|'ct,t: t,.sting altd rcat,ltiltg l7
community at large surrender to academic technicians their right and duty
to be involved, they also surrender their right to check on the teaching
strategies that are the direct result.'
The premirrm placed on the 'right answer' in both overt and covert testing
inevitably adds to e inflaon of the teacher's authority, based on his or her
role as arbiter of correctness. One of my main arguments is that we need to
move away from is relationship towards a leamer-centred approach to
testing, and I will give examples of how this can begin to happen.

characteristics of In Table 1, I summarizewhatl feel are the most important characteristics


testing and of the teaching and testing processes.
teaching The qualities listed there under 'Teaching' are based on my own
observation of teachers, native-speakers and non-native speakers, in the
context of a number of teacher training courses and on a survey I have
been conducting with students into what makes a good language teacher. I
have also drawn on the work into effective teaching reported in Holt
(l9U), Peck (l988), Richards (l990), and Harmer (l99l),
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 leaming 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
irrdividual points of language) is balanced with global testing (successful
use of nrore than one language skill in more extensive chunks of text). In
addition, the testing of speaking has become a tnore 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 eft-ect remains predominantly ncgative and encourages a
nrodel of learning sunrnred up in the lei-lrarrd colunrtr of Table l.
(Broadl1,, speaking, the two approaches describccl correspond to left and
right brairr learning-see, for example, Gemgross and Puchta. 1992.
I would like now to discuss in more detail s<lrtic of the characteristics Marks v
iisted i,r Table i. achieve

FaiIure and Tests itre clesigrred to cliscrinrinate proficienc},. lli. ,1,! |,c(. ar.d acIlie vcrrrent.
success Inclccci. sollle tcsts wctu[d be rcgardcd as irrcliicieIlt il'all carrdidates
t,rijovctl ctltrltl sttcccss. This is intlocetrt etttluglt. ancl. irt aclrrlirlistrative
tt-1,1lls, r,crv useful. Il does. horvcl,eL. te,t-td tcl c1-1c(),.tl,itqe a vicrv o'sttrclenls
lts'gotlci 'tlI"baci'.'strong'or'rveak'. Sucil a ciltssilicatitltt nlay,bc the
1il,st stcp tttu,ards a fhtalism that assul-Iles s()ll](] \ttl(lellts are btlrn to fail
ltttcl tlthers i,ll,c'|laturltl'language leartlers. Tlte i ictirn olthis i\lanichaeaIr
r icrv tll't}r., clltsst,oclt-t,t ivorld is usualll,tlre s<l-clrllctl 'bacl 'lcltrIlt-r. wlro is

lE Lttkc p l t lt!rt tltttltt


.ndduty Table 1 Testing Teaching
eaching exercises (multiple-choice, etc,} tasks
failure success
weakness strength
t testing errorphobia learning from error
is or her marks achievement
fear confidence
need to anxiety pleasure
oach to teacher control learner independence
te}.tbook input learner input
judgement support (from teacher and peer group)
mistrust rapport
teristics individualism, competition the group, co-operation
impersonality personalization
insensitivity sensitiVity to learners
ly own isolated sentences
fragments of text
text
whole texts
;, in the form content
, I have culture-bound cultu re-sensitive
text+q uestions lead-in, follow-up
acher, I
solemnity humour
in Holt boredom i nterest
extrinsic motivation intrinsic motivation
product process
tte with
covert condemned to failure by the pressures
S
of examination preparation.
often
,s,
Testing is a
straidacket that cramps personal learning styles and
med up discourages the 'weak' leamer's potential for growth.
public
nroreof Error In testing. there is a pre-occupation with accuracy and error that reaches
rber of almost behaviourist proportions. Sadly, 'enormania' on the part of the
dge of teacher encourages 'errorphobia' irr the learners: a reluctance by 'weaker'
:cessful members of the _eroup in particular to take risks for fear of makin_g i
,ext). In
mistakes, losing marks, and thus slipping down in the classroon-t
feature, hierarchy. The result is a silence arising not from the learners' ability but I
ieshing from discriminatory classroom procedures. Research into the good
; in the l
language learnerhas highlighted the fact that these learners are risk-takers l
rffi SUCh
who are also able to leam from their mistakes (Rubin l987, Wenden l987,
)wever. Stern l983). By not encouraging leanrers to learn from their nristakes aIrd
r.lges a
work out the rules of the lan_euage for themselves, conventional testing
'ablc l.
prevents the full development of the cognitive aspec(s of leaming, thereby
leti and contradicting what we have corl]e to consider as _eood teaching practice.
)92.
:eristics Marks versus A classroonr clilrrate dominated bv testing will give students the
achievement impression th::t rvhat mattcrs in larrguage learning is the nrark they get. not
only irr tests, but also br classroom perbrntaItce, assignrttents. ancl
/e tllent. hotrrework, even though these ntay have no direct cotrnection u,ith tlre firral
icilttes
rcl exartlinatiot-t. The students' freqLrent demand
or t'cc<Jback on all ol'their
stral ivc errors and their preoccupation with tlreir weaknesses ratlrer than their
,tu(lcnts Strengths have their numerical equivalerrt in the pursuit oi lrigh trrarks or
, be thc grades. Although the view that language acquisitiorl is easill,quantifiable
r to ail may encourage students to work harder (extrinsic lllotivltion), it also
ichacan obscures the inrportance of concepts which are not al\^,avs eas}, to
. whtl is measure, such as appropriacv. qualit1,. and attitude iIr learnin_c.
Thc btt<,kl,uslt L,ffi,ct: !t,sitt3 tttttl tutt.ltilt3 l9
Anxiety yerus Tests and examinations are closely associated in leamers' minds with
pleasure anxiety; it is doubtful whether performance, even in tests, is facilitated by
an attack of fear and nervous tension but, in educational terms, these are a
major obstacle to learning. Most recent approaches to language learning
would accept the importance of affective factors in the classroom. The
features of orthodox testing I have described so far all contribute towards
raising the learner's affective filter, and thus placing barriers in the way of
efficient leaming. Moreover, a great strain is placed on classroom
relationships when the teacher is called upon to play the role of the Sole
students' judge and executioner: when testing comes through the door,
rapport between teacher and learner often goes out the window.

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 ofthe 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.
One-dimensional or anaemic textbook/teacher input is to some extent
inevitable when the public exanlination is also an international
exanrination. available in countries with widely differirrg cultures.
Challenging and culturally relevant material is watered down on the
principle of the lowest coIrrrron denorrritrator. Examination material will
tend to reflect the culture in which English is spoken as a first language.
The problern of alien and alienating content is a parallel one to that of the
'global textbook', but in an even more acute form. The remedy might be a
greater use of local and learner input, but this is an option rarely adopted
by teachers and students straitjacketed by examination syllabuses and
materials: material that will not 'come up in tlre exams' will rarely be
'brought up' in class.

The discourse of The content of texts used in exarrrination prcparation is not orrly
examination texts inrpersonal and culture-bound. it is olien a peculiar variety o1'English,
u,hich is neither fact not fiction. Test itenrs like the tbllowing are utrique to
tlre exanritratitlrr gcnrc -they are literally corrtext-less and col1lel]t-less,
about nothirr_9 arrd nobocly in partictrlar:
1 I'd like to visit Inclia rnore than any othet,coulltry in the rrtlrld.
India is
2 The light to M osco\\, lasted three antl a lrall'ltours.
It took
PronouIts in English usually re'er to stltrrcl,1ody or stltrrething previously
Irretrtionecl. btrt (he prollotlll iIr sentetrcc I rcl'ers to ncitlrer: it is pure fotm.
We clo ltot kn<lw rvlro the 'I' r,e'crred trl is. attcl rve rvill tlel,er kttclrv rvlry he
tlr slre rvould like to l,isit India.
]() I-tt kc [' n l l rt,ltt, ltt
The definite article in sentence 2 is tantalizingly specific, but in fact the
cohesion is misleading: there is no flight, definite or indefinite; there is no
context to which this text belongs and to which we can refer if we want to
know more. It is difficult (though not impossible, as I will show later) to
relate these propositions to a linguistic or real-world context.
Functionally, we do not know whether these texts are parts of a narrative
or argumentative text.

Solemnity versus Humour, like context and content, is considered inappropriate in testing.
humour
Tests cannot be funny because there is not thought to be room for humour
in the solemn ritual of the examination process. Thus, testin_e becomes a
pretext for numerous practices which in any other pedagogic context we
would reject out of hand as inimical to good language learning.

product and
The two methods of imparting language that I have referred to as testin_E
process
and teaching differ in one overarching essential: the first focuses almost
exclusively on the product (the language to be taught), while tlre 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 nust finish the
book', 'Cover the syllabus', etc. Preoccupation with the errd-product i
obscures the importance in langua_ee teaching of two factors nlentioned
earlier: classroom nlanagement and rapport. If the exanrination syllabus ]

and its accompanying exercise types are the destination for many i
l
teachers, the process by which the1, reach that destination is the journey: I
t
have been arguing that this journey, which depends so much on good
management and rapport, should be both enjoyable and educatiorrally t

satisfying.

Transferring
Tests and cxanrinatioIts arc llol gtlillg to go awayl the prtlcluct, both
testing linguistic and commcrcial. will continue to be packaeecl. nrarketed, and
procedures to
sold. Any suggestiolls clnc nrakes concerning the transf'er fronr testittg
teaching procedures to teaching procedurcs nrust tirke this 'act ol educational lif'e
procedures
irrto accourrt. Tltc cxantplcs I givc in the inal part of tlris paper arc based
on excrcise types conlr]ltlrtlv uscd irr cxarrlitrations. I wiII tr1, to slrow horv
the nrost unpronlisin_e tcstirtg nlalcrial Irriglrt be trrade into a nlOre
challenging vchiclc <l'pcrstlnal cxprcssitltt. with<lut tlre teaclrl,r lravirlg to
abandon tlrc botrk or the syllabus.

Tlrc overall principlc bclriIrd thc tcchniques tlescribed beloir is the shiti
fiotrr teacher control to studcllt ctlntrol. The tasks will theretbr.e itrvtrlve
the use of learrrcr input. rvhich l 'ce-l is a key elenrent in trlnsforrrlirlg
negative inlo ptrsitivc bltcku'aslt artcl irt ntaking cxaIlrinat,ioIr prcpirrittioll
more of an educaliorral activity than it is at present in rlrost exanritlatiorl
classes.
'f
ltc lxtckv,u.slt c|'<,< t, It'.tIitti tttttl lcut,ltitt,: ]l
1 The examiner's hat
(i) Students complete sentence-level multiple-choice, gap-filling, or
transformation exercises in the conventional way.
(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.

(iii) In groups, the students re-cast their personalized sentences in the


style of the test format they are working on (multiple-choice. _eap-
filling, transformation exercises, etc).
(iv) The groups swap their personalized test items and do each other's
teSts.

(v) The teacher checks and gets feedback on the fornr and in particular
on the content of the sentences.

2 Gender bending
(i) Get students to rewrite sentence-level multiple-choice atrd
transbrmation exercises by asking them to change all -enriniIre
subjects into masculine and vice versa. The results will be both
surprising and memorable.
(ii) Focus on content: consider whether the resulting Sentences are (a)
coTect (b) acceptable. A lively debate will invariably ensue as. for
instance, when 'He's such it nauglrty boyl it's anrazing what his
nrother lets him get away rvith' bccomes 'She's such a naughti, girl:
it's antazing whlt lu,r |tltt,1, Ic-ts /tcl,gct away wi{It' tlr wlren 'Havirrg
laid tlre table . Mrs Jclncs called tltc 'aIrrily to supper' becortres 'Havirtg
laid the iablc. Ml,Jottcs callcd tlre tarrrily to supper.'
(iii) Ask stuclents to sumnlarize tlrc results of this excrcise irrto a clrart
sinrilar to Table 2. (l'his is a snral| santple basccl orr ,"r ltttthc,ntic.
international public cxlrrlrirratiorl! ).
(ir,) Ask students ttl w,ritc ltll ilrgtlIllL,lllalive ctlIlrposititln on eqLralit1,of Ma
tltc scrcs birscd otr tltc 'tllrla' givcn irl ]'a[rlc 2. tr

3 Transormation tennis
]'hc lilllorving exercise brcaks dorvrt thc 1)attcrl1 tr' scrriccl rarrks ol'
\tu(lcl]ls-hcacls in bocrks. lto L,\,c c11111xcl-bl, usirtg tlre, classrotttrt space
lt. lt kilttl ol' r,crbal te llnis c()tll,t.
2)_ 1 _11 l;1 |) 1.7 al 1.a lnt t u
Table 2 Males Females

ing, or stay out late have to come home early


can push open doors make chocolate cake
earn a lot of money give up their jobs to look after children
drive quickly and carelessly look carefully before crossing the road
;. using make difficult decisions are afraid to go into the sea
,ence in take an active part in politics tell lies
know', become priests become nurses
tems of
(i) The class form into two teams. A student in team X 'serves' the first
xistent'
half of a pair of transformation sentences, for example by saying
friends,
'India is the country I would like to visit more than any other.'
ople, or
ish. The (ii) A student from team Y serves the sentence back in the form of an
original appropriate transformation, using the stem provided in the book: T/re
country (I would like to visit more than any other is India). Team Y
scores if the transformation is conect,
:s in the
ice, gap- (iii) The teams take it in turns to serve.

This technique can be applied to any textbook exercise which is in two


h other's distinct parts: matching, multiple-choice, word-building (e.g. noun to
adjective).
)articular
4 Connecting the fragments
The following exercise takes impersonal fragnrents of langua_ee rvith
nrininlal content and gets students to make thenr into an integrated part of
a whole text.
oice arrd
t'emirrirre
(i) Complete a sentence-level test in your usual way (nrultiple-choice,
ll be botlt transformations, word-buildin_e, expansion from notes to conrplete !

sentences, etc.).

(ii) Ask a least altc of


l

:es are (a) students to write a composition to include the


practice sentences. They can incorporate the sentences at
l
the
sue as. lbr
: rvltltt lris beginning, middle, or end of their composition.
rught1, girl: (iii) students circulate their compositions round the class (or you call
crt'Havitrg stick them up on the class noticeboard as an 'exhibition'). Students
rcs'Hal,irrg read each other's texts and try to identiy and nlake a note of the
sentences from the original textbook exercise.
irrt<l a clrart This exercise not ct-tl_v provides creative colllposition practice. but also
t lttrthctttic. revises tlrose sentences rvhich, no sooner practised, are usually to[goten.

ctltr lt l it r tl l Management N4,v suggestions tnay seem to inrply that tlre problent of rtcgative
techniques backwash is one of course desigrr and nretlrodolog;,. It is. horvcvcr.
espccially in its covert lortns, chiefly a problern ol attitudc ancl rapptlrt,
Teachcrs express attitudes towards learning not onl;, irr tlteir choice o'
n]aterials arrd methods. but also in their approach to classroottr
ccl rltrrks tll' rrlanagcnlellt. This discipline-wlrich involves the use ol' tiIlrc. space,
Sr()Olll s[)ilcc voice. arld _geture-\\,eaves subtle messages wlrich catt l-Ilotivate or
cletncltivate a class. For this reason I woLrld likc to errd with a briel'
'f
ltc llut,kl,uslt af|'cct: tt,stitt14 ttttd lcucltitt3 j_)
Beferen
checklist of management tactics which will tend to mitigate some of the Aldersor^
features of testing, and encourage an ideology of co-operative learning. exist?'
Fabian, I
patema
Fro- 1 When you ask the class a question, allow the 'weaker' students some Testing.
choice to ^uittipt"
personal thinking time--do not make question and answer routine a race to the Gerngros
choice right answer. Cramm
Harmer,,
Teachin
2 Do not stand too close to the student who is answering the question, Heaton, J
thereby excluding the rest ofthe class: use space and distance to create London
an inclusive, group feeling. Holt, J. l,
Penguir,
Howatt,
3 When you get a 'right' answer do not just move on to the next item:
Langua,
ask other students 'Do you agree?', 'What have you got?' Do not Press.
reveal the right answer too soon. The process is as important as the Hughes, i
product. Cambrit
Peck, A. l
4 Give students time to look at questions before they listen or read-this Prentice
Richards,
will make the task more directed, and help develop skills rather than Longnu
merely test them. London

5 Encourage students to share----stablish the idea of tests aS a group


activity alongside individual testing tactics.

6 Ensure smooth linking of the stages of the lesson-avoid the


disconnected. random fragments. the rag-bag so characteristic of test
material and examination preparation classes:

7 Avoid saying things like 'work quickly', or'you've got one minute to
do this-hurry up'.

8 Anange desks in such a way that students can see each other and make
eye contact.

9 When you ask a question or discuss a problem use eye contact to


include the whole class, not just the 'best' students.

l0 Use your voice to su_qgest that error is a usef'ul contribution to the


class. not an untbrtunate lapse on the part of the student. Try a fall-rise
itrtot,.iiicll ('Yes. but . . .') rather than a fall ('No').

Rct,t,ivcd Dec,enillcr l 993

]i
-{ Lukc prtulnlnulu
)f the References Richards, J. C. 1990. The l,anguage Teaching
ling. Alderson, C. and D. Wall. 1993, 'Does washback M atrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
exist?' Applied Linguistics 1412: 1L5J9. Rubin, J. 1987. 'What the 'good language leamer'
Fabian, P. l982. 'Examinations: why tolerate their can teach us'. TESOL Quarterly 9l|: 41-5l.
patemal!m?' in J. B. Heaton (ed.) Language Seaton, B. l982. A Handbook of English Language
ome Testing. London: Modem English Publications. Teac hin g Te rms and P rac tic e. London : Macmil lan.
:o the Gerngross, G. and H. Puchta. 1992, Creative Stern, H. H. |983. Fundamental Concepts of
Grammar P ractice. London: Longman. Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Harmer, J. l99l. The Practice of English l-anguage Press.
;tion,
Teac hing. London: Longman. Wenden, A. 1987. 'How to be a good language
Heaton, J. D. 1990. Writing English l"anguage Tests. leamer' in A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds.) Learner
:reate London: Longman. Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood
Holt, J. |964. Hov,Children Fail. Harmondsworth: Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Penguin.
item: Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A Histoty of English The author
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
o not Luke Prodromou works for The British Council in
Press.
the Greece. He has been involved in training teachers for
rs Hughes, A. l989. Testing for l-anguage 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. Ianguage Teachers at Work. London:
Prentice Hall.
UCLES CTEFLA Schemc Committee and the team
-this
,than Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. The working on the new Cambridge Integrated Language
Training Schemes (ClLTS). He is the author of Mr.ted
Longman Dictionary of Applied Ling,uistics.
London: Longrnan.
Ability Classes (Macmillan) and several lextbooks tbr
examination classes.
]roup

l the
lf test

ute to i

!
1

l
make ll
]

rct to

,o thc
,l-rise

Thc bttt,kuuslt af|cct. tastitt,q utul tcucltittg 25

You might also like