Expanding the Concept of Washback

  • Dawn Karen Booth
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 12)


The concluding chapter of this book posits a new situated model of washback – one that combines the process of learning in response to a test at both the micro and macro level of learner activity. A chief contribution of the model is that it underscores the powerful influence of interrelated and interdependent stakeholders in directing the washback effect of a test. In light of this wider sociocultural conceptualisation of washback, this chapter further discusses important implications and perhaps obligations for the test makers, the wider community, teachers, researchers and for learners themselves.


Washback Consequences Impact TOEIC Learning Model Micro Macro Implications Sociocultural Process Government Business Society Learners Teachers Stakeholders 


  1. Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13, 280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. O., Muir, W., Bateson, D. J., Blackmore, D., & Rogers, W. (1990). The impact of provincial examinations on education in British Columbia: General report. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boldt, R. F., & Ross, S. (1998). The impact of training type and time on TOEIC scores. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Booth, D., & Lee, N. (2016). Learner conceptualizations and washback of the paper-based TOEFL test on student affect at one Japanese university. The 2nd IRI Research Forum.Google Scholar
  7. Breen, M. (2001). Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 112–140). Essex: Pearson Education Ltd..Google Scholar
  8. Brown, H. (2005). Learner perceptions of TOEIC test results and language skill improvements: I don’t want to study English, I want to study TOEIC. Paper presented at JALT. Retrieved from
  9. Burrows, C. (2001). Searching for washback: The impact of assessment in the certificate in spoken and written English. In G. Brindley & C. Burrows (Eds.), Studies in immigrant English language assessment (pp. 95–187). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
  10. Chapman, M., & Newfields, T. (2008). The ‘new’ TOEIC. Jalt Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 12, 32–37.Google Scholar
  11. Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: Washback on teacher perspectives and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 3–18). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Cho, E. (2010). Washback on the CSAT English test on high school students’ language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Keimyung University.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, A. (2012). Test-taking strategies. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Gosa, C. M. C. (2004). Investigating washback: A case study using student diaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  17. Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education. InStudies in language testing (Vol. Volume 25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1998). Ethical test preparation practice: The case of TOEFL. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herman, J. L. (1992). Accountability and alternative assessment: Research and development issues (Tech. Rep. 384). Los Angeles: University of California/Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  21. Holliday, A. (2010). Analysing qualitative data. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 98–110). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  22. Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished manuscript. Reading: University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. International Language Testing Association. (2000). Code of ethics. Retrieved from
  25. Jeon, J. (2010). Issues for English tests and assessments: A view from Korea. In Y. Moon & B. Spolsky (Eds.), Language assessment in Asia: Local, regional or global? (pp. 53–76). Seoul: Asia TEFL.Google Scholar
  26. Kane, M. (2013). Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.Google Scholar
  27. Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(4), 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knapman, G. (2008). The TOEIC: Critical review. Fukuikogyodai. Journal, 38, 85–94.Google Scholar
  29. Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). I’d rather switch than fight: An activity-theoretic study of power, success, failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  30. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity: Understanding learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  31. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 12–24). Essex: Pearson Education Ltd..Google Scholar
  32. Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: Eighty-seventh yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 83–121). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. McNamara, T. (2008). The social-political and power dimensions of tests. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Horberger (Eds.), Language testing and assessment. Volume 7 of encyclopaedia of language and education (2nd ed., pp. 415–427). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers of change. In D. Chamberlain & R. J. Baumgardner (Eds.), ESP in the classroom: Practice and evaluation (pp. 98–107). London: Modern English.Google Scholar
  37. Qi, L. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Testing, 22(2), 142–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saville, N., & Hawkey, R. (2004). The IELTS impact study: Investigating washback on teaching materials. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 73–96). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Shih, C. M. (2007). A new washback model of students’ learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shohamy, E. (2009). Language policy as experiences. Language Problems and Language Planning., 33(2), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. The Diplomat. (2014, July 18). South Korea redefines multiculturalism. The Diplomat. Retrieved from
  42. Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System, 28, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watanabe, Y. (2004). Methodology in washback studies. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 19–36). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Xie, Q. (2010). Test design and use, preparation, and performance: A structural equation modelling study of consequential validity. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn Karen Booth
    • 1
  1. 1.AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations