Washback effects of high-stakes language tests of Turkey (KPDS and ÜDS) on productive and receptive skills of academic personnel

Öz Washback, the impact of tests on education in general and language testing in particular, has become a popular area of study within educational research. This paper focuses on the washback effects of two high-stakes Foreign Language Tests (KPDS and UDS) of Turkey. The main concern of the study is to investigate the impact of these tests on receptive and productive language skills of academicians. 103 academic personnel working at Nevsehir University attended the study. A 26-item questionnaire was designed and administered to 103 academic personnel working at Nevsehir University. The data were analyzed using statistical analysis including descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics that use ANOVA to find whether there are significant differences between productive and receptive skills of the participants. It has been found out that there are significant differences between reading and writing; reading and listening, but reading and speaking provided insignificant results.


Alderson, J. C. and Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-129.

Alderson, J. C., and Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL Preparation Courses: a study of washback.

Language Testing, 13 (3), 280-297. Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback: a case study. System, 30(2), 207

Biggs, J. B. (1995). Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. Curriculum Forum, 4 (2), 1-22.

Cheng, L. Y. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education, 11, 38-54.

Cheng, L. (2002). The washback effect on classroom teaching of changes in public examinations. In S.

J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 91-111). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cheng, L. (2003). Looking at the impact of a public examination change on secondary classroom teaching: A Hong Kong case study. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(1), 1-10.

Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Studies in language testing, 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Choi, I. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25(1), 39-62.

Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins A. (1989). A system approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.

Hsu, H.-F. (2010). The impact of implementing English proficiency tests as a graduation requirement at Taiwanese universities of technology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of York, United Kingdom.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jin, Y. (2000). The backwash of the CET-SET on teaching. Foreign Language World, 4, 56-61.

Karabulut, A. (2007). Micro level impacts of foreign language test (university entrance examination) in

Turkey: A washback study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Iowa State University, USA. Li, X. (1990). How powerful can a language test be? The MET in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 11(5), 393-404.

Lumley, T. & Stoneman, B. (2000). Conflicting perspectives on the role of test preparation in relation to learning? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 50-80.

Luxia, Q. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback functioning of a high-stakes test. Language Testing, 22, 142-173.

Manjarrés, N. B. (2005). Washback of the foreign language tests of the state examination in Colombia:

A case study. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT – Vol. 12, 1-19. Retrieved from http://slat.arizona.edu/sites/slat/files/page/awp12manjarres.pdf Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241-256.

Munoz, A. P., and Alvarez, M. E. (2010). Washback of an oral assessment system in the EFL classroom.

Language Testing, 27 (1), 33-49. Newfields, T. (2005).Washback effects on teachers: A pilot study at one university faculty. English, 31(1), 83-105.

Özmen, K. S. (2011). Washback effects of the Inter-University Foreign Language Examination on

Foreign Language Competences of Candidate Academics. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(2), 215-228. Pan, Y., & Newfields, T. (2012). Tertiary EFL proficiency graduation requirements in Taiwan: A study of washback on learning. Electric Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 3-13.

Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers of change (or ‘putting first things first’). In D. Chamberlain & R.

Baumgartner (Eds.), ESP in the classroom: Practice and Evaluation (pp. 98-107). London: Modem English Publications in association with the British Council. Poonpon, K. (2010). Expanding a second language speaking rating scale for instructional and assessment purposes. English Language Institute, 8, 69-94.

Qi, L. (2004). Has a high-stakes test produced the intended changes? In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe & A.

Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 171-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rahimi, Z., & Nazhand, N. (2010). Perspectives on IELTS Preparation Courses to the learners: Iranian

Learners Perspectives on IELTS Preperation Courses. 2010 International Conference on e

Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning (pp. 490-494). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society. Reynolds, J. (2010). An Exploratory Study of TOEFL Students as Evaluators of Washback to the Learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Queensland, Australia.

Saif, S. (2006). Aiming for positive washback: A case study of international teaching assistants.

Language Testing, 23(1), 1-34. 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sevimli, S. (2007). Washback effects of foreign language component of the university entrance examination on the teaching and learning context of English language groups in secondary education (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Gaziantep, Turkey.

Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5-13. Shohamy, E., Donitsa, S., & Irit, F. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language Testing, 13(3), 298-317.

Shohamy, E. (1992a). Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing model for assessing foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 513-521.

Shohamy, E. (1992b). New models of assessment: The connection between testing and learning. In E.

Shohamy & R. Walton (Eds.), Language assessment for feedback: Testing and other strategies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.

Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 5- 29.

Stobart, G. (2003). The impact of assessment: Intended and unintended consequences. Assessment in Education, 16, 139-140.

Wall, D. (1996). Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory. Language Testing, 13(3), 334-354.

Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System, 28, 499-509.

Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13(3), 318- 333.

Watanabe, Y. (2004). Teacher factors mediating washback. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis

(Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 129-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weiping, G., & Juan, L. (2005). Test analysis of college students’ communicative competence in