English Language Teachers’ Perceptions of Involvement in High-Stakes Testing in Turkey

  • Kenan DikilitaşEmail author
  • Yeşim Keşli Dollar
  • Enisa Mede


This chapter explores the perceptions of English language teachers about their involvement in High-Stakes testing, offering insights into the role of teachers in the testing process. The aim is to examine how often they are engaged in the different stages of test preparation and discuss whether their involvement has an impact on this process and procedures. It also considers the implications of strategies of involving teachers as contributors to this process. To this end, English language teachers working at five different higher education institutions in Turkey participated in this study. The data was collected through a Likert scale to elicit information about their involvement in the testing preparation process and to examine the positive and negative washback effect of testing on their instructional practices.


  1. Abrams, L., Pedulla, J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksu Atac, B. (2012). Foreign language teachers’ attitudes toward authentic assessment in language teaching. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8, 7–19.Google Scholar
  3. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Centolanza, L. R. (2004). New Jersey teachers believe testing compromises sound practices. ERS Spectrum, 22, 32–41.Google Scholar
  5. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 1–21. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating ‘no child left behind’. The Nation. Retrieved 30 Sept 2016, from
  7. Evans, A. (2009). No child left behind and the quest for educational equity: The role of teachers’ collective sense of efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L., & Schorr, R. Y. (2004). Test preparation in New Jersey: Inquiry-oriented and didactic responses. Assessment in Education, 11, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs, N., & Harvey, D. (2010). The extent to which teacher attitudes and expectations predict academic achievement of final year students. Educational Studies, 36, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kukucka, S. (2012). An examination of teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Dissertation, Walden University, USA.Google Scholar
  12. McReynolds, K. (2006). The no child left behind act raises growing concerns. Encounter, 19, 33–36. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from
  13. Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Effects of state testing programs on elementary schools with high concentrations of student poverty: Good news or bad news? Current Issues in Education, 5, 1–22. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from
  14. Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., Jarvis, J. M., & Hall, C. J. (2007). State standardized testing programs: Their effects on teachers and students. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
  15. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  16. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002).Google Scholar
  17. Paris, S. G., & Urdan, T. (2000). Policies and practices of high-stakes testing that influence teachers and school. Issues in Education, 6, 83–107.Google Scholar
  18. Pavia, A. (2012). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of the effects of high-stakes testing. Dissertation, Walden University, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Rea-Dickins, P., & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: Disentangling the construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17, 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: High-stakes testing policies and their relations with psychological theories and research. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354–372). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sach, E. (2011). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sloane, F. C., & Kelly, A. E. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42, 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing role of teachers in an era of high-stakes testing accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang, S. (2009). Preparing and supporting teachers of less commonly taught languages. Modern Language Journal, 93, 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenan Dikilitaş
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yeşim Keşli Dollar
    • 1
  • Enisa Mede
    • 1
  1. 1.Bahçeşehir UniversityİstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations