Evaluation of washback effects of ESP end - term test for second-year students at UEB-VNUH on teachers at Faculty of English - ULIS - VNUH = Đánh giá tác động c

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




PHẠM THU HÀ


EVALUATION OF WASHBACK EFFECTS OF ESP END - TERM
TEST FOR SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS AT UEB - VNUH ON
TEACHERS
AT FACULTY OF ENGLISH –ULIS –VNUH

Đánh giá tác động của bài Kiểm tra Tiếng Anh Thương Mại cuối kỳ dành
cho Sinh viên năm thứ 2 Trường Đại học Kinh Tế- ĐHQGHN đến việc
giảng dạy của giáo viên Bộ môn Tiếng Anh Kinh Tế- Khoa Tiếng Anh
ĐH Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQGHN

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: Methodology
Major code: 60.14.10


Hanoi - 2010

2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




PHẠM THU HÀ


EVALUATION OF WASHBACK EFFECTS OF ESP END - TERM
TEST FOR SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS AT UEB - VNUH ON
TEACHERS
AT FACULTY OF ENGLISH –ULIS –VNUH

Đánh giá tác động của bài Kiểm tra Tiếng Anh Thương Mại cuối kỳ dành
cho Sinh viên năm thứ 2 Trường Đại học Kinh Tế- ĐHQGHN đến việc
giảng dạy của giáo viên Bộ môn Tiếng Anh Kinh Tế- Khoa Tiếng Anh
ĐH Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQGHN

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: Methodology
Major code: 60.14.10
Supervior: Dr. Dương Thị Nụ

Hanoi - 2010



5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………
01
1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study…………………………
01
2. Aims of the study ………………………………………………………………
03
3. Scope of the study ………………………………………………………………
04
4. Research questions ………………………………………………………………
04
5. Research methodology ………………………………………………………….
04
6. Design of the study ………………………………………………………………
05
DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………….
06
CHAPTER I – LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………
06
I.1. Language test and its purposes ……………………………………………….
06
I.1.1. Definition of a language test ………………………………………………
06

I.1.2. Purposes of a language test ………………………………………………
06
I.2. Achievement Tests and English for Specific Purposes ………………………
08
I.2.1. Definition and types of achievement tests ………………………………
08
I.2.2. English for Specific Purposes and English for General Business
Purposes ……………………………………………………………………………

09
1.2.3. Characteristics of an ESP achievement test ……………………………
11
I.3. Washback effects of tests ……………………………………………………
12
I.3.1. Definition of washback …………………………………………………….
12
I.3.2. Types of washback …………………………………………………………
12
I.3.3. Teachers and washback …………………………………………………
14
CHAPTER II - THE STUDY ……………………………………………………
16
II.1. Background to the study: The context of English teaching, learning and
testing of second year students at UEB – VNUH ………………………………

16
II.1.1. The context of English teaching and learning at UEB – VNUH ………
16
II.1.2. Description of the language testing situation and the currently used
ESP final achievement test at UEB – VNUH …………………………………….

18
II.1.2.1. Description of the language testing situation at UEB- VNUH ……
18


6
II.1.2.2. The currently used ESP final achievement test at UEB- VNUH …
19
II.2. Methodology of the study …………………………………………………….
21
II.2.1. Research approach ………………………………………………………
21
II.2.2. Subjects …………………………………………………………………
22
II.2.3. Methods and procedures of data collection …………………………….
22
II.2.3.1. Methods of data collection …………………………………………
22
II.2.3.2. Procedures of data collection ………………………………………
23
II.2.4. Methods of data analysis ………………………………………………
24
CHAPTER III – FINDINGS, DICUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
25
III.1. Findings from collected data ………………………………………………
25
III.1.1. Teachers’ responses to questionnaires and interviews ……………….
25
III.1.2. Data analysis of classroom observation ………………………………

33
III.2. Discussion of findings: Washback effects of the ESP end-term test on
teachers ……………………………………………………………………………

34
III.2.1. Teaching contents and teaching materials …………………………….
34
III.2.2. Teaching methodology ………………………………………………….
35
III.2.3. Teachers’ attitudes and behaviors in class …………………………….
35
III.3. Recommendations to teachers to maximize the positive washback effects
and minimize the negative washback effects of the ESP end-term test on their
teaching ……………………………………………………………………………


36
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………….
39
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………….
41
APPENDICES




7

ABBREVIATIONS

EFL: English Foreign Language
EGBP: English for General Business Purposes
ESP: English for Specific Purposes
ESBP: English for Specific Business Purposes
UEB: University of Economics and Business
ULIS: University of Language and International Studies
VNUH: Vietnam National University, Hanoi


8

LIST OF CHARTS


Chart 1: Teachers’ fulfillment of class teaching content to the syllabus ………
28
Chart 2: Teachers’ following teaching process and conducting in-class tasks
29
Chart 3: Teachers’ teaching materials …………………………………………
30
Chart 4: Teachers’ care for students’ past test scores …………………………
32
Chart 5: Teachers’ anticipation of changes on their part when having detailed
report of students’ past test scores ……………………………………………….

33

9

LIST OF TABLES


Table 1: Curriculum frame for QHE 2008 students of UEB – VNUH ………
17
Table 2: Assessment frame for QHE 2008 students of UEB-VNUH …………
19
Table 3: Specification grid of ESP end-term test for second semester of
academic school year 2009-2010 ………………………………………………….

21
Table 4: Teachers’ belief on factors that influence teaching …………………
25
Table 5: Teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the ESP final
achievement test of the second semester …………………………………………

26
Table 6: Teachers’ attitudes and behaviors in class …………………………….
31

10
INTRODUCTION

1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study
From the early 1960s, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), which is defined by
Strevens (1988, p.1) as “a particular case of the general category of specific purpose
language teaching”, has grown to become one of the most prominent areas of English
Foreign Language Teaching. Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p.19) see ESP as an approach
rather than a product, by which they mean that “ESP is an approach to language teaching
in which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner's reason for
learning". Also, learners’ needs, the typical feature of ESP, are highlighted by Dudley-
Evans, T., and St. John, M. J., 1998, p.123) with the belief that “ESP has as its basis in an
investigation of the purposes of the learner and the set of communicative needs arising
from those needs”. Since emphasis is laid on learners’ needs, in discussing ESP teaching, a
number of factors must be taken into consideration such as motivation, learning strategies,
etc. Also, due attention should be paid to issues closely related to any language courses
such as syllabus design, materials development, methodology, assessment, etc. From the
perspective of Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) assessment does not stand alone, but
occupies a prominent place in the ESP process, giving an ESP teacher a wealth of
information on the effectiveness and quality of teaching and learning. They also suggest
that ESP testing yields an observed judgment of the effectiveness of teaching.
It is generally recognized that in EFL teaching context in Vietnam, the teaching of
Business English has received considerable attention in the last decade of the 20
th

century,
especially in specific business schools or institutions. Such implementation of Business
English is visibly important as it can meet the demands of pre-experienced learners in
terms of language skills related to business fields so that they can adjust themselves to the
fast-changing business environment later on. In the specific context of EFL teaching and
learning in VNUH, language needs of Business English of students at UEB-VNUH were
identified by the research carried out by the Division of English for Economics, Faculty of
English, ULIS- VNUH in 2007. Findings from the research revealed that students expect to
engage in the language with the specific aims of getting access to specialized Business
English vocabulary, enlarging their knowledge of the subject matters related to commercial


11
English, becoming prepared for some common business situations (i.e. going for an
interview, conducting professional correspondence, taking the minutes, etc.) so that they
can use the language in their prospective jobs.
Regarding the features of such ESP teaching approach, and in order to meet the
needs of second-year students at UEB- VNUH for their prospective jobs as businessmen or
economists, for the past two academic school years, Division of English for Economics,
Faculty of English-ULIS-VNUH has moved from the self-complied Business English
course book to a new set of Market Leader Intermediate (Cotton, Falvey, and Kent, 2005).
This content-based course book emphasizes the use of authentic materials and Business
Communication skills development so as to encourage second-year students at UEB to take
active roles in their class activities as well as improve and expand their four English
language skills to a higher level. Since putting in used, the course book has received great
acceptance from both teachers and students for its easy-to-follow structure, stimulating
contents and useful language specificity inputs.
Such a change in teaching syllabus requires changes in assessment, since testing is
closely related to what is taught and is subject to whatever changes taking place in course
books. Regarding this newly implemented English Business course book, the evaluation of

students’ improvement is done through continuous assessment. One component of this is
the ESP end-term test, a kind of achievement test that second-year students are required to
sit for at the end of the semester. As the test accounts for 50% of the final score, it is
supposed to affect the students in many aspects. This achievement test is also supposed to
be meaningful since Hughes (2001, p.10) reasons that “achievement tests are directly
related to language courses, their purposes being to establish how successful individual
students, groups of students, or the courses themselves have been in achieving objectives”.
While such a test may have influences on students, it may at the same time affect
the teachers in many ways such as teaching contents and materials, teaching methodology,
attitudes and behaviors. In their study in a Nepalese educational contexts, Herman and
Golan (1993, cited in Chen, 2002, p.3) reported that over 50% of the teachers admitted that
they would give substantial attention to mandated tests in their instructional planning and
delivery. In devising their syllabi for instruction, they would look at prior tests to assure
that they covered the subject matter of the test or test objectives. Shohamy et.al. (1996),
Cheng (1997) and Wantanabe (1996) also addressed teachers’ use of past test papers and


12
test-oriented textbooks in sessions near test time. These researchers at the same time
mentioned teachers’ feeling and attitudes towards testing process and test scores. It is
evident that there is a chance for a test to influence teachers, either positively or negatively.
However, expertise in assessment of Business English tests in EFL teaching context
in ULIS- VNUH is still a rarely researched area. In fact, there has been little practical
attempt to evaluate Business English tests. For the past five years, teachers from English
for Economics Division, Faculty of English, ULIS-VNUH, as test-makers have got
opportunities to take part in conducting and delivering Business English end-term tests.
Although learners’ needs were identified, up to now there has been no concern paid to the
washback effect, the influence a test has on teaching and learning, in general and
washback effects of ESP end-term tests on teachers in particular, i.e. how such tests
influence teachers’ teaching, how positive washback can be maximized and negative

washback can be minimized.
Such gap has encouraged the researcher to choose “Evaluation of washback effects
of ESP end - term test for second-year students at UEB- VNUH on teachers at Faculty
of English-ULIS-VNUH” as the topic of her research. It is hoped that this study would
make a modest contribution to better the teaching of Business English to second-year
students at UEB-VNUH.
2. Aims of the study
The study aims to primarily seek for evidences of washback effects of the ESP end-
term test for second year students of UEB - VNUH on teachers at English for Economics
Division, Faculty of English – ULIS -VNUH. More specifically, it focuses on:
1) Investigating the washback effects that the ESP end-term test for second-year
students has on teachers of English for Economics Division, Faculty of English -
ULIS - VNUH;
2) Evaluating whether such evidences of washback (if any) are positive or negative to
teachers;
3) Proposing ways to enhance the positive impacts and to minimize the negative
effects of the test on teacher’s teaching of Business English.
Practically, by looking for evidences of washback effects, the study aims at
highlighting the close relationship between teaching and testing, and therefore, may be a
source of reference in the attempt to better teaching and improve testing Business English


13
for second-year students of UEB-VNUH. The study is also expected to be useful for the
researcher’s colleagues and anyone who is concerned about the matter of testing in general
and the interrelation of Business English teaching and testing in particular.
3. Scope of the study
It would be too ambitious for this small-scaled study to cover all aspects of testing,
a broad field of language teaching methodology, within a short time and with limit
reference materials. Therefore, the study is limited to the washback effects of the ESP end-

term test for QHE 2008 students at UEB -VNUH on teachers at English for Economics
Division, Faculty of English, ULIS -VNUH.
Also in this study, the test washback effects will be interpreted at a micro level
within the classroom setting rather than being discussed at a macro level. More
specifically, it just focuses on the wash back effects of the ESP end-term test on teaching.
Besides, the term “ESP” in this study is generally used as a conception of English for
General Business Purposes, or shortly Business English, whose target learners are pre-
experienced learners preparing to work in an occupational business context.
4. Research questions
On the basis of the above-mentioned aims, the study is conducted in order to
answer the two following questions:
1) What are the washback effects of the ESP end-term test on teachers’ teaching
content, teaching methodology, attitudes and behaviors?
2) What are the recommendations made to teachers in order to maximize the positive
washback effects and minimize the negative washback effects of the ESP end-term
test for second-year students?
5. Research methodology
The research methodology applied in this study is Survey Research. This study was
approached as a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, that is, to
take advantages of survey questionnaires, observation and semi-structured interviews as
the data collection tools. The collected data are then analyzed quantitatively and
qualitatively. In addition, information from other sources such as Internet, journals, books
was collected and synthesized.
Participants for the study are 12 teachers coming from English for Economics
Division, Faculty of English – ULIS – VNUH as respondents to the survey questionnaire.


14
Two teachers are randomly selected for class observation and subsequent semi-structured
interviews.

6. Design of the study
The study is divided into three main parts: Part I is the Introduction to the study.
Part II is the Development and Part III is the conclusion.
In the Development, Chapter I reviews the literature on language testing,
achievement language tests and English for Specific Purposes achievement tests and
washback effects. Chapter II addresses the testing context of Business English end-term
test for second-year students at University of Economics and Business, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi and describes the methodologies of the study. Chapter III presents,
analyzes and synthesizes data collected from questionnaire survey, classroom observation
and interviews and makes several suggestions to maximize the positive washback effects
and minimize the negatives ones on the teaching of Business English to second-year
students. Finally, the Conclusion part presents conclusions about the washback effects of
the test on teachers.
References materials are listed along with appendices including the questionnaire
for teachers, observation checklist, interview questions and the Business English end-term
test used in the second semester of academic school year 2009-2010.



15
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I – LITERATURE REVIEW

I.1. Language test and its purposes
I.1.1. Definition of a language test
Caroll (1968, p.46, cited in Bachman, 1995, p.20) considered a test is “a procedure
designed to elicit certain behavior from which one can make inferences about certain
characteristics of an individual”. According to Alderson, Clapham and Wall (1995, p.41),
a language test is a set of test items, each test item “consists of a method of eliciting
behavior or language, together with a system whereby that behavior or language can be

judged”. Along this line, Heaton (1990) holds that tests should be considered first as means
of assessing the students’ performance and then as devices to motivate students. With
regards to the belief that testing should serve the needs of teaching, Davies (1990, p.1)
considers that testing “provides goals for language teaching, and it monitors, for both
teachers and learners, success in reaching those goals”.
In short, a language test is an instrument for assessing test-takers’ uses of language
knowledge and skills. It also plays the role of motivating device for students in their
learning process and for teachers to adjust their teaching accordingly.
I.1.2. Purposes of a language test
Testing contributes an important part in teaching and learning process. It reflects
teaching process and overall training objectives. It also evaluates learners’ ability,
suitability of teaching methods, teaching/ learning materials, teaching/ learning conditions.
As testing, teaching and learning cannot be separated from each other, a language test must
be able to serve different purposes in teachers’ teaching and students’ learning.
In a teaching process, the first and foremost reason for testing is to evaluate
students’ knowledge and skills to use the target language. Bachman (1995, p.55) points out
that “the fundamental use of testing in an educational program is to provide information
for making decisions, that is, to evaluate.” Tests are intended to discriminate between
those who have the ability and those who do not; and the results of tests provide teachers
with necessary information to classify their students into different levels.
The second purpose of testing is “to provide the teacher with information on how
effective his teaching has been” (Read, 1983, p.3). By administering a test to students, a


16
teacher can discover what her students have known and what they have not, measure their
progress, and then decide what to teach next as well as which method should be applied to
specific teaching situations. Basing on students’ performance in those tests, teachers can
also self-evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching methods, the appropriateness of the
course objectives, the usefulness of the course book and the suitability of test items. Such

constructive feedbacks, in turn, urge teachers to adjust their future teaching activities.
In addition, teachers write tests in order to provide additional materials for students
to practice further and check their knowledge and the ability of utilizing what they have
learnt into different situations (Ur, 1996). As test tasks should be in a familiar form and
able to cover the most important units of knowledge in the lessons, it can be considered as
a review of the periods leading up to the test. “Testing should be firmly rooted in previous
classroom experiences in terms of activities practiced, language used, and criteria of
assessment employed” (Weir, 1993, p.5). Consequently, by administering such tests,
teachers facilitate students’ awareness of the main points in their course and offer them one
more chance to revise such points.
In a learning process, tests are aimed at serving students in many ways. Through
their test performance and test results, students can check what they have been learning
and what they need to learn more. A test, according to Read (1983, p.3) “can help both
teachers and learners to clarify what the learners really need to know.” In other words,
information from tests help students themselves reveal their strengths and weaknesses, so
that they can determine appropriate types and levels of their future learning activities.
Accordingly, students may develop alternative learning strategies and/ or ask for help and
support from teachers and peers in order to enhance what has already been good and
improve what remains weak.
Another purpose of testing is to motivate learners. Tests encourage students to
review specific materials (Ur, 1996). When the test is announced, students will have to pay
more attention to what they have been taught as well as specific areas of knowledge related
to their specific field, i.e. English for International Economics, English for Finance and
Banking. If they want to get good marks, they have to revise lessons and study harder.
Preparation for a test is, then, a process in which students spend time drilling materials in
order to get good result, and thus achieve intended teaching/ learning objectives.


17
In short, testing can be used to achieve many different aims in teaching and

learning. A test may be primarily designed for evaluating purposes but can latter be a
useful means for promoting the effectiveness of the teaching-learning process.
I.2. Achievement Tests and English for Specific Purposes
Language tests are classified in a number of ways. In terms of testing method,
language tests consist of oral and written ones. Based on the methods of scoring and
marking, they are divided into subjective tests and objective tests. With regards to
purposes, they can be categorized into proficiency, achievement, diagnostic and placement
tests (Hughes, 2001, pp.7-19; Bachman, 1995, pp. 71-77). The primary differences among
these kinds of tests are in the purposes they serve and the manner in which their content is
chosen. As the scope of this study is washback effects of achievement tests, this part is
focused on achievement tests.
I.2.1. Definition and types of achievement tests
Different researchers have proposed different definitions of achievement tests but
they all agree that this kind of test is used to evaluate how much students have achieve in
their process of learning. Brown (1994, p.259) defines an achievement test as the one that
“is related directly to the classroom lesson, units or even a total curriculum. They are
limited to particular materials covered in a curriculum within a particular time frame.”
This concept matches with Heaton’s (1990, p.4) one as he considers an achievement test
“measure a student’s mastery of what should have been taught (but not necessarily what
has actually been taught). It is thus concerned with covering a sample (or selection) which
accurately represents the contents of a syllabus or a course book.”
With reference to types, achievement tests are subdivided into progress
achievement tests and final achievement tests.
Progress achievement tests are conducted during the course to measure the progress
that students are making. They are conducted in some specific period during the course,
depending on the syllabus, course objectives and testers’ decisions on when should
measure the progress students are making. In other words, progress achievement tests are
supposed to help the teacher judge the degree of success of his/ her teaching as well as find
out how much students have gained from what has been taught. Accordingly the teacher
can identify the weakness of learners or diagnose the areas not properly achieved so that

he/ she can adapt other teaching approaches to attain better teaching and learning results.


18
Final achievement tests, as their name suggests, are usually a formal examination,
given at the end of the school year or at the end of the course to measure how far students
have achieved the course objectives. It may be written and administered by the Ministry of
Education, official examining boards, or by members of certain teaching institutions.
Clearly the contents of this kind of test must be related to the teaching content and
objectives concerned. Correspondingly, Hughes (1990, p.11) suggests two approaches
towards achievement test designing: syllabus-content approach and objective-content
approach. While the former can be considered a fair test as it is designed directly basing on
what the students have learnt in the course book, the latter probably provides more
accurate information about individual achievement and group achievement. Both of the
approaches are likely to promote backwash effect on teaching.
I.2.2. English for Specific Purposes and English for General Business Purposes
Regarding the definition of ESP, Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) makes a
distinction between three absolute characteristics and four variable characteristics of ESP.
The three absolute characteristics are that:
 ESP is designed to meet specific needs of the learners;
 ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities of the disciplines it
serves;
 ESP is centered on the language (grammar, lexis, register), skills, discourse and
genres appropriate to those activities;
The variable characteristics are as follows:
 ESP may be restricted to or designed for specific disciplines;
 ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that of
General English;
 ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at tertiary level institution or
in a professional work situation. It could, however, be used for learners at

secondary school level;
 ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students. Most ESP courses
assume basic knowledge of the language system, but it can be used with beginners.
From the above definition of ESP, it can be seen that contrary to the belief that ESP
is just the drilling of technical terms and grammatical structures, ESP is actually the viable


19
approach for enabling tertiary-level or adult language learners to efficiently acquire a
sufficient level of mastery in the communicative forms of language required for their
professional or occupational needs.
ESP has traditionally been divided into two main areas: English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). In terms of EOP, there are
many subcategories and English for Business Purposes (or Business English) is one sub-
category. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p.53) see Business English as “an umbrella
term used similarly to the term English for Specific Purposes to embrace both general
courses in the appropriate lexis and grammar for business communication”. As for their
classification, it includes English for General Business Purposes (EGBP) and English for
Specific Business Purposes (ESBP). The discussion in this study is concerned mainly with
English for Business Purposes (or Business English) as EGBP whose target learners are
adult learners preparing to work in an occupational business context, not an academic one.
Unlike ESBP courses which are run for job-experienced learners who bring their
own business context knowledge and skills to the language-learning situations, EGBP
courses are usually for pre-experienced learners or those at the very early stages of their
career. They are similar to general EFL courses with the materials set in business contexts.
Many learners attend these courses at language schools and groups will usually be formed
on the basis of language level rather than job. There is a range of good published materials
for students and teachers to choose from, with input in text, audio and video formats. The
published course books are mainly designed for use on the extensive courses that have one
or two sessions a week, over several months or a year. Most units contain work on the

traditional four skills plus specific grammar and vocabulary development.
The underlying construct of the course is often grammatical, as in the Macmillan
Business English Programme (Badger and Menzies, 1993, cited in Dudley-Evans, T., and
St. John, M. J., 1998, p.56) or in the light of Communicative Language Teaching as in
Market Leader Intermediate (Cotton, Falvey, and Kent, 2005). The focus is presentation,
through listening and reading, and grammar and vocabulary practice through exercises,
which focus on accuracy. There are also activities, tasks which are more open-ended and
develop fluency in all four skills. The setting include “meeting people”, “making
arrangement”, “talking about company”, “traveling”, “doing business across cultures”,


20
etc. Typical business-career content topics include marketing, branding, advertisement,
product quality, product development, leadership and management styles, etc.
Such courses teach a broad range of English through business settings rather than
ESBP. The vocabulary range of EGBP books clearly differs substantially from that of
English for General Purposes but the language activities are core EFL ones and the
answers are often predictable with more closed, right/ wrong responses than unpredictable,
open responses.
1.2.3. Characteristics of an ESP achievement test
Basically, ESP tests are no different in terms of qualities from other types of
language tests. In principle, any ESP test in general can be classified as a performance test
assessing the skills needed to “perform” in the language successfully. Test-takers’
performance on an ESP achievement test, therefore, depend largely on the interaction
between language knowledge and specific purpose content knowledge. Douglas (2000,
p.10) cites that ESP tests are “contrived language use events” in which, ideally, the test-
taker’s language ability and knowledge of the specialized field are measured.
ESP achievement tests are related in content, themes and topics to particular
disciplines, and involve a higher degree of language specificity. More specifically, special
lexical, semantic and syntactic characteristics of technical language, in addition to its

communicative functions must be exposed through the test. In other words, an ESP
achievement test is designed upon the demands of linguistic characteristics of the
specialized area of work or study.
Furthermore, one of the prevailing characteristics of any ESP achievement test is
that it should contain tasks that mirror faithfully candidates' target language use situation.
Accordingly, ESP achievement tests are concerned to present learners with tasks that
involve them in reading, listening to, speaking or writing the target language, and
evaluating how well they can do this. That is to say, the key to this assessment is to present
learners with tasks that resemble in some way the sort of things they may have to do with
the language in real life. In other words, the tasks must be authentic.
Therefore, it is visible that the ESP achievement test, like the ESP test in general, is
based on the analysis of learners’ target language use situations and specialized knowledge
of using English for real communication.



21
I.3. Washback effects of tests
I.3.1. Definition of washback
The notion of “washback” is prevalent in language teaching and testing literature.
Some writers like Hughes (2001, p.1) used the term backwash while washback was
preferred by Buck (1988, p.17, cited in Pan, 2009, p.258) and Bachman and Palmer (1996,
pp.30-35) to describe the effects of testing on teaching and learning.
Definitions of washback range from simple to complex ones. While some
researchers see it as simple as “effects of the test on the classroom practice” (Berry, 1990,
p.31, cited in Pan, 2009, p.259), or consider washback “refers to the fact that testing
controls not only the curriculum but also teaching methods and students’ learning
strategies” (Biggs, 1995, p.3 cited in Pan, 2009, p.257), many others hold broader views.
Pierce (1992, p.687, cited in Bailey, 1999, p.4) states that “washback effect refers to the
impact of a test on classroom pedagogy, curriculum development, and educational

policy,” Bachman and Palmer (1996, pp.29-35) take a further step by stressing washback
as a subset of test impacts on society, educational systems, and individuals. They further
divided the test impact into two levels: the micro level (i.e., the effect of the test on
individual students and teachers) and the macro level (the effects of the test on society
and its educational systems).
In this study, a narrower interpretation of wash back will be adopted: wash back at
a micro level within the classroom; that is the effects a test has on teaching and learning.
More specifically, it focuses on wash back effects of an ESP test on teaching.
Referring to washback effect of an ESP test, Hughes (2001) stated that “it seeks to
investigate the relationship between test use and the ESP situation in which it is used” Put
simply, it is the effect of ESP test on classroom instruction, on “what is taught and how it
is taught” (Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998, p.214). As for them, an ESP test, which
would be based directly on an analysis of English language needs of a specific group of
learners as similar as possible to those which they would have to perform in real life,
would probably be a more plausible case of beneficial backwash than a case in which no
such analysis would be carried out.
I.3.2. Types of washback
Generally, washback can be analyzed according to two major types: positive and
negative, depending on whether it has a beneficial or harmful impact on educational


22


practices (Hughes, 2001). This section explores positive and negative wash back in terms
of the micro level – the wash back of tests on teaching and learning.
In terms of positive wash back a test brings, it is obvious that teachers and learners
will be motivated to fulfill their teaching and learning goals. Tests induce teachers to cover
their subjects more thoroughly, making them complete their syllabi within the prescribed
time limits as well as motivate students to work harder to have a sense of accomplishment

and thus enhance their learning. Pearson (1988, p.107, cited in Pan, 2009, p.259) indicated
that “good tests can be utilized and designed as beneficial teaching-learning activities” so
as to encourage a positive teaching-learning process. Furthermore, syllabus alteration or a
new syllabus can be resulted from a creative and innovative test. (Davis, 1985, p.18, cited
in Pan, 2009, p.259)
However, there exist a number of negative wash backs of a test. First of all, the test
will lead to the narrowing of content in the curriculum, focus of attention on those skills
that are most relevant to testing. Teachers tend to ignore subjects and activities that are not
directly related to passing the exam, and tests accordingly alter the curriculum in a negative
way. Smith (1991, p.20, cited in Pan, 2009, p.260) points out that testing programs
“substantially reduce the time available for instruction, narrow curricular offerings and
modes of instruction, and potentially reduce the capacities of teachers to teach content
and to use methods and materials that are compatible with standardized testing formats”.
Besides, measurement-driven instruction will definitely result in cramming, as Shohamy
(1992, p.15) indicated that “what students have learned is test language, instead of total
phases of understanding”. Another negative washback is the placement of constraints on
teachers’ and students’ creativity and spontaneity, since many teachers detailed high
anxiety, fear and pressure to cover the materials, “as they felt that their job performance
was assessed by students’ test scores” (Shohamy et al., 1996, p.6). This will result in
disparage the professional judgment of educators as the tests may fail to create a
correspondence between the learning principles and/or the course objectives to which they
should be related.
To summarize, in terms of the classroom setting, the positive washback integrates
meaningful and innovative learning activities in teachers’ educational methodologies, and
thus educators will devote more attention to students’ intentions, interests, and choices.
Students at the same time will be encouraged and motivated to work harder. On the other


23
hand, the negative washback is that teachers will usually teach-to-the-test, narrow the

curriculum and only focus on what will be tested. Besides, cramming will be the negative
washback brought by measurement-driven tests.
I.3.3. Teachers and washback
A glance at studies to date on washback effect of language tests shows that the
most closely related area is test impacts on participants, namely test- takers, teachers, and
other “personnel involved in language teaching such as administrators, course designers,
materials developers” (Bailey, 1999, p.12). Each participant is influenced in a different
way, but due to the scope of this study, the next section only discusses how teachers can be
influenced by washback.
Bailey has conducted “it is safe to say that teachers are the most frequently studied
of all the participants in the washback process” (1999, p.18). Bachman and Palmer (1996)
persuasively argue that testing always has influence on teachers’ instruction; that is, if it
appears obvious to teachers that they have to use a certain test, they may find it hard to
avoid “teaching to the test” (p.33). Meanwhile, there are cases when teachers themselves
feel unhappy with the results the test may produce, which reflects the unsatisfying quality
of the course. Therefore, they require a change in testing procedure that can promote
classroom’s instruction in order to enhance effective learning. They then come to a
conclusion that testing can influence teaching in a wide range, from almost nothing to quite
a lot, and can be both positive and negative.
Likewise, six out of fifteen Alderson and Wall’s restatements of washback
hypothesis are to emphasize the importance of teachers:
1. A test will influence teaching;
2. A test will influence what teachers teach; and
4. A test will influence how teachers teach;
7. A test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching; and
9. A test will influence the degree and depth of teaching; and
11. A test will influence attitudes to the content, method, etc. of teaching and learning.
(Alderson and Wall, 1993, pp. 120-121)
Researchers have observed classroom practices in various language learning and
testing contexts and come to a variety of conclusions. Among them are: teachers’

classroom behavior can either support or discourage the intended positive washback effect


24
of new or revised tests (Wall and Alderson’s case study in Sri Lanka, 1993); and test
influence on experienced teachers may be different from that on novice ones, i.e. new
teachers’ lessons tend to have many additional activities while the experienced seem to fill
their classes with more materials from the tests (Shohamy et al.’s observation in Israel,
1996). In many observed contexts, teachers change their teaching contents to adapt to a
shift in the test rather than changing their methodology (Lam’s research in the Revised use
of English Test in Hong Kong, 1993; Cheng’s report on HKCCE, 1997; Wanatabe’s study
in Japanese context, all cited in Bailey, 1999). Similarly, Wanatabe (1996, p.31) strongly
remarks three possible factors that might encourage or limit the washback on teachers:
1. the teachers’ educational background and/ or experience;
2. the differences in teachers’ beliefs about effective teaching methods;
3. the timing of the researchers’ observations.
(Wanatabe, 1996, p.31, cited in Bailey, 1999, p.23)
This comment shares the same viewpoints with which Lam (1993, cited in Bailey,
1999) holds. He emphasizes that changing the test is not sufficient to draw out a change in
teachers’ methodology and learning outcomes, yet, “the challenge is to change the
teaching culture, to open teachers’ eyes to the possibilities of exploiting the test to achieve
positive and worthwhile educational goals” (ibid., p.96, cited in Bailey, 1999, p.23).
In short, washback- one of the five criteria of a good test (namely validity,
reliability, discrimination, practicality) has been thoroughly discussed by many
researchers. Their studies also provide general as well as specific guidelines on how to
achieve these crucial decisive factors to the best. It is the duty of testers to integrate them
flexibly into real contexts so as to accomplish success in designing tests, which will result
in later successful teaching and learning.

25
CHAPTER II - THE STUDY

II.1. Background to the study: The context of English teaching, learning and testing
of second year students at UEB - VNUH
II.1.1. The context of English teaching and learning at UEB - VNUH
 Students and their backgrounds
First and foremost, it is necessary to evoke the EFL learning context of students at
UEB- VNUH by highlighting its main characteristics.
University of Economics and Business is a young university (officially established
in 2007) with five training majors: Business Administration, Finance and Banking,
International Economics, Political Economics, and Development Economics. Students are
trained to be business people or economists in the future.
Students at UEB- VNUH, aged from 18 to 22, come from both rural and urban
areas within the country and most of them had chances to get access to English, some had
learned other languages such as Russian or French when they were at high school. When
starting classes with first year students, ESP teachers administer placement tests to
diagnose students' abilities and distribute them among different language groups which
differ in size from 20 to 25 students. Particularly, the QHE 2008 second-year students were
already equipped with the background knowledge of General English with New Headway
Elementary, New Headway Pre-intermediate and New Headway Intermediate in the first
three semesters and in the 4
th
semester, they finished with the ESP course book Market
Leader Intermediate- New Edition, which is compulsory for all training majors.
 The English teaching staff
The English for Economics Division belonging to the Faculty of English is a small
division with only 13 teachers. They take over teaching both General English and English
for Specific Purposes majoring in Business English. All the teachers have been well-
trained in Vietnam and four of them obtained Master Degree in TESOL, the rest are doing

their MA course in TESOL in ULIS -VNUH. Although none of them had studied abroad,
they continuously acquire for themselves a great deal of knowledge of General English and
specialized subjects of Business English through their self-study and in-country training
programs. Most of them have a language teaching background and do not have first-hand


26
experience of the content and context of other disciplines or business nor have worked in
business settings. However, they are always fully aware of adapting suitable methods of
teaching homogenous classes and applying technology in their teaching Business English.
 The objectives of the English courses for non- English majors at UEB -VNUH
According to the program of the first stage education at the non-specialized
language universities, and the decision No 477/TTG issued on September 5
th
, 1994 by the
Prime Minister, non-English majors are to master basic knowledge of grammar,
vocabulary, phonetics and some speech discourse to accomplish their competence in the
target language. However, under the decision No 2098/ DT made by VNUH and UEB -
VNUH basing on the education purposes in training students to become businessmen or
economists, the whole curriculum for QHE 2008 was framed as follows:
Credit
Semester
Number of hours of credit
Course book
I
4
4 x 15 weeks = 60 crd hrs
New Headway Elementary
II
4

4 x 15 weeks = 60 crd hrs
New Headway Pre-intermediate
III
3
3 x 15 weeks = 45 crd hrs
New Headway Intermediate
IV
3
3 x 15 weeks = 45 crd hrs
Market Leader Intermediate
Table 1: Curriculum frame for QHE 2008 students of UEB - VNUH
In the first three semesters of General English, students work with New Headway
Elementary, New Headway Pre-intermediate, and New Headway Intermediate. These
courses, which are designed for every student in non-specialized language universities in
VNU, provide students with basic knowledge of grammar, pronunciation as well as
develop and improve four kills of listening, speaking, writing and reading so that they can
communicate general English in everyday life. However, in the third semester, the teachers
at English for Economics Division, Faculty of English – ULIS- VNUH planted the seed for
the next semester by preparing students with English for Specific Purposes through
supplementary materials with vocabulary, reading passages related to Business English.
In semester IV, the second year students of the academic school year 2009-2010
moved to Market Leader Intermediate (Cotton, Falvey, and Kent, published in 2005) to
master English for Business. As clarified in the course syllabus, there are three main
objectives to achieve after the course:


27
 Enriching learners’ language knowledge, i.e. vocabulary and grammar related to
business and economics through specialized themes such as career paths,
marketing, e-commerce, customer services, management, ethics, etc.

 Consolidating and improving learners’ language skills: communication and
presentation skills, writing, reading and listening comprehension. Specifically,
communication skills refer to ability to communicate effectively in common
business situations like negotiating, dealing with complaints/ conflicts, etc. As for
presentation skills, learners are expected to know how to make a presentation from
preparing, delivering the presentation to answering questions. Whereas writing
focuses on forms of commercial correspondence such as letters, emails, minutes,
memo, etc. Besides, learners are provided with standard inputs, i.e. articles,
interviews, etc. to improve receptive skills - reading and listening comprehension.
 Developing other learning skills including team-work skills, discussion skills,
problem solving skills through activities like Case study, role playing, etc. so that
students can practice and improve their English for Business and related fields. Not
less importantly, the course is also aimed at guiding them how to construct their
self-study skills so that they can apply such knowledge and skills in real life tasks.
The course objectives described above were based on the analysis of students’
needs and expectations carried out by teachers before the implementing of teaching
Business English with Market Leader Intermediate Course book to students of QHE 2007
in the previous academic school year.
II.1.2. Description of the language testing situation and the currently used ESP final
achievement test at UEB – VNUH
II.1.2.1. Description of the language testing situation at UEB- VNUH
For QHE 2008 students, from semester I to semester IV, they had to undertake two
kinds of tests: Progress Achievement Tests and Final Achievement Tests. In order to obtain
learners’ reliable progress and achievement, certain means of evaluation have been
applied. The following table will illustrate the assessment process more clearly:
Types of Tests
Means of evaluation
Time schedule
Progress Tests
(50% of the total

mark)
Portfolio (preparation for new lessons,
collection and reflection on articles, writing
entries, homework completion)
Every week