Tác động của bài đánh giá năng lực tiếng anh chuẩn đầu ra đối với sinh viên không chuyên khoa luật

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

WASHBACK OF THE PROFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT AS EXIT REQUIREMENT
ON NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT A LAW
SCHOOL

Supervisor: Dương Thu Mai, Ph.D
Student: Bùi Thanh Hường
Course: QH2014.F1.E3

HÀ NỘI – 2018


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

TÁC ĐỘNG CỦA BÀI ĐÁNH GIÁ NĂNG LỰC
TIẾNG ANH CHUẨN ĐẦU RA ĐỐI VỚI SINH VIÊN
KHÔNG CHUYÊN KHOA LUẬT

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Dương Thu Mai, Ph.D
Sinh viên: Bùi Thanh Hường
Khóa: QH2014.F1.E3

HÀ NỘI – 2018


DECLARATION
I hereby state that I: Bùi Thanh Hường, being a candidate for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts (English teaching Education) accept the requirements of the
College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited
in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the
library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance
with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or
reproduction of the paper.

Signature
……………………………
May 2018


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I owe a debt of gratitude to my supportive and inspiring supervisor,
Ms. Duong Thu Mai, Ph.D., who has offered me unceasing assistance to my study.
I am sincerely thankful for her expert guidance, great encouragement and valuable
advice while my research was carried out.
I would like to express my special thanks to students at the School of Law
for their willingness to participate in the research. Without them, this study could
not be fulfilled.
I am deeply thankful to my lecturers, my friends and my classmates for their

constructive comments, helpful suggestions as well as constant stimulation. Their
help plays a critical role for the completion of this study.
Last but not least, I would like to show my deep gratitude to my family, who
have always inspire me to complete this study.
Hanoi, May 2018
Bùi Thanh Hường

i


ABSTRACT
With the introduction of the Project 2020, students at most universities in
Vietnam have to pass the graduation proficiency assessment. The understandings of
the test effects on learning and teaching, or washback, are essential for the teachers,
students and test administrators to gain desirable test outcomes. However, little is
known about test’s washback, particularly washback on students in Vietnam. This
study, hence, investigate the perception of students of a graduation proficiency
assessment and the washback of the test on students’s test preparation strategies
through questionnaires and interviews. The results show that students have positive
perceptions towards the graduation proficiency assessment but the test exerts little
effect on their test preparation. Although students of different years share the
optimistic attitudes toward the test, they tend to prepare for the test differently.
While the seniors study more test-like materials, the freshmen are likely to study
general English tasks.

ii


Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ....................................................................... vi
CHAPER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1. Statement of research problem & questions ..................................................... 1
2. Scope of research .............................................................................................. 2
3. Significance ....................................................................................................... 2
4. Design of the study ........................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 4
2.1. Issues in language assessment........................................................................ 4
2.2. Washback in language testing and assessment .............................................. 4
2.2.1. The definitions of washback .................................................................... 4
2.2.2. The nature of washback ........................................................................... 6
2.2.3. Theoretical framework of washback ....................................................... 7
2.3. English language proficiency tests ............................................................... 11
2.3.1. Communicative language proficiency ................................................... 11
2.3.2. Major proficiency tests .......................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 16
3.1. Context ......................................................................................................... 16
3.2. Research questions ....................................................................................... 16
3.3. Participants and selection of participants ..................................................... 17
3.4. Data collection method ................................................................................ 18
3.4.1. Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 18
3.4.2. Interview ................................................................................................ 20
3.5. Data collection procedure ............................................................................ 21
3.6. Data analysis ................................................................................................ 23
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................... 26
4.1. Students’ attitude toward the graduation proficiency assessment (GPA).... 26
iii

4.1.1. Students’ decision to take the GPA ....................................................... 26
4.1.2. Whether the test would motivate students to improve their English ..... 27
4.1.3. Whether the test would raise students’ English proficiency ................. 29
4.1.4. Whether the test would measure students’ proficiency accurately ....... 30
4.1.5. Whether the test’s results would be useful in supporting job application
......................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.6. Test anxiety ............................................................................................ 34
4.2. GPA washback on students test preparation for the graduation proficiency
assessment ........................................................................................................... 36
4.2.1. The general English studies ................................................................... 36
4.2.2. Test-specific English activities .............................................................. 38
PART V: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 48
5.1. Summary of the findings and discussion ..................................................... 48
5.1.1. Students attitude toward the test ............................................................ 48
5.1.2. Washback on students’ test preparation ................................................ 49
5.2. Conclusion and implication ........................................................................ 50
5.3. Recommendations ........................................................................................ 50
5.4. Limitations of the study ............................................................................... 51
5.5. Suggestions for further research .................................................................. 51
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ 56
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................... 61
Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................... 66
Appendix 4 .......................................................................................................... 68
Appendix 5 .......................................................................................................... 70

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
FYSY

First year and second

GPA

Graduation Proficiency Assessment

MCQs

Multiple choice questions

MoET

Ministry of Education and Training

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TOEFL

Test Of English as a Foreign Language

TYLY

Third year and last year

VNUH

Vietnam National University Hanoi

VSTEP

Vietnam Standardized Testing of English Proficiency

v


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 2.1. A basic model of washback (Hughes, 1993) ......................................... 8
Figure 2.2. A washback model of students’ learning (Shih, 2007, p.151) ............. 10
Figure 3.3. Interview participants ........................................................................ 22
Figure 4.1. Reasons to take the GPA...................................................................... 27
Figure 4.2. Students’ perception toward test motivation ....................................... 28
Figure 4.3. Students’ perception toward test function of raising English
proficiency .............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 4.4. Students’ perception of the GPA’s accuracy ....................................... 31
Figure 4.5. Students’ perception toward the test usefulness .................................. 33
Figure 4.6. Respondents’ test anxiety .................................................................... 35
Figure 4.7. Students general English learning activities ........................................ 37
Figure 4.11. Time to prepare before the test .......................................................... 40
Figure 4.14. Test preparation strategies ................................................................. 43
Figure 4.15. Time for each test preparation activity .............................................. 45
Figure 4.16. Difference between two groups ......................................................... 46

Table 2.3. The structure of the TOEFL iBT Test ................................................... 12
Table 2.4. VSTEP Background (Carr et al., 2016)................................................. 13

Table 3.2. Questionnaire Items ............................................................................... 20
Table 3.4. Reliability Statistics part 1 .................................................................... 24
Table 3.5. Reliability Statistics part 2 .................................................................... 24
Table 3.6. Reliability Statistics part 3 .................................................................... 24
Table 4.8. Number of General learning activities .................................................. 37
Table 4.9. Numbers of hours per week for General English activities .................. 38
Table 4.12. Time for test preparation of respondents per week ............................. 41
Table 4.13. Number of learning strategies taken by respondents .......................... 42

vi


CHAPER I: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of research problem & questions
The impacts of language assessment, in other words, test washback, have
seen an increased interest in the last few decades (Alderson & Wall, 1993;
Bailey, 1996; Hughes, 1989; Caine, 2005). The research contexts spread from
Canada, Brazil, Germany, and Greece to Japan, China, and Hong Kong. A large
number of studies have emerged, especially on large scale tests such as TOEFL
and IELTS (Alderson & Hamp-Lyons, 1996 and Green, 2007), Hong Kong
Certificate of Education Exam in English (HKCEE) (Cheng, 2004), General
English Proficiency Test (Pan & Newsfields, 2012) . The findings of the degree
of washback, however, vary overtime; while some scholars concluded that there
was almost no washback in their studies (Watanabe, 2014; Shih, 2007), others
stated the strong effect of washback (Ferman, 2004). Thus, it can be indicated
that the washback might be different in each context.
In context of Vietnam, in recent years, the status of foreign languages is
considerably heightened thanks to the implementation of National foreign
language 2020 project, which requires that “by 2020, most Vietnamese students
graduating from secondary, vocational schools, colleges and universities will be

able to use a foreign language confidently in their daily communication, their
study and work (…)” (Prime Minister, 2008). Therefore, universities and
colleges have to select a Graduation Proficiency Assessment (GPA) for their
students. One of the tests used for university exit is known as “Vietnam
standardized test of English proficiency (VSTEP), a high-stake test which is
likely to exert certain impact on test users (e.g. students, teachers and
practitioners). However, there are a few studies of GPA or VSTEP washback on
students, particularly the non-English majored ones.
To fill such gap, this study aims to investigate the washback on nonEnglish majored students’ preparation strategies for the graduation proficiency
assessment (GPA) and their attitudes toward the test in VNUH, particularly at
the School of Law.
1


In brief, this study will address the following questions:
1. What are students’ perceptions toward the English graduation proficiency
assessment?
2. To what extent does the graduation proficiency assessment influence
students’ preparation strategies(from students’ perspective)?
3. Are there differences in the test preparation strategies of students in
different years?
2. Scope of research
This research targets students at the School of Law, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi (VNUH). To graduate from this school, all students are
required to pass the GPA level of B1 or B2; or in other words, they have to pass
the level 3 or level 4 of Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency
(VSTEP). The alternatives namely TOEFL, TOEIC, Cambridge Test, or IELTS
certificates are also accepted. Moreover, students can make decision to take any
examination as long as they have an equivalent level 3 or 4 VSTEP certificate
which satisfies the language graduation requirement.

For time limited, this study will only look at the washback on students’
preparation for the test and their attitude toward the GPA.
3. Significance
Despite being conducted at a small scale, not to be generalized, the study
would partly fill the literature gap of washback on students. By targeting nonEnglish major students, the research may raise their awareness of different test
preparation strategies as a good source for better learning. Simultaneously,
teachers, practitioners and other stake holders might have a better understanding
of their students’ attitude and learning in order to enhance the quality of the tests,
teaching and learning activities. This study would also be useful for other
researchers concerning language assessment, particularly washback area.

4. Design of the study
This study is divided into five chapters:
2


Chapter 1: Introduction – presents the rationale, aims research questions,
significance, scope, and design of the study
Chapter 2: Literature review – discusses the theoretical framework and studies
of washback and English language proficiency tests
Chapter 3: Methodology – demonstrates the context and research design of the
study
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion – shows the comprehensive of data and a
discussion on the findings of the study
Chapter 5: Conclusion – provides a summary of the findings, conclusion,
recommendation, limitations, and future direction for the study.

3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Issues in language assessment
Historically, language testing has evolved and expanded over 30 years.
The 1980s witnessed a shift from language tests which focused on discrete-point
format to the communicative language testing; besides, the field also expanded
to Second Language Acquisition areas. The next decade carried on the
expansions in numerous areas namely “research methodology”, “practical
advances”, “factors that affect performance on language test”, authenticity,
“ethical issues and consequences of test use.” (Bachman, 200, p.4). Of all those
issues, the study of washback, a facet of test consequences, until now, has still
been discussed worldwide for its importance. According to some researchers, the
test impact could “governs and determines people future’s education” (Shohamy,
2001 as cited in Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, p.22). Due to the considerable
power and authority of the tests, many policy-makers may use them to administer
the educational system or promote particular behaviors (Shohamy et al., 1996).
2.2. Washback in language testing and assessment
2.2.1. The definitions of washback
Testing has been utilized in education and employment area for such a
long time for a multitude of purposes namely measuring test-taker’s proficiency,
playing the gatekeepers’ roles, or motivating students. On account of the
powerful role of test in different fields, there is a notion that testing has an
influence on learning and teaching. Before 1990s, the common terms in language
testing to refer to the belief about the testing and teaching/ learning relationship
were “curricular alignment” (Linn, 1983), which refers to the relationship of the
testing content and the designed curriculum; “measurement-driven instruction”
(Popham, 1987), which holds the view that “testing should drive curriculum and
thereby teaching/ learning”; “systemic validity” (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989),
which refers to changes in curriculum and instruction to “foster the development
of the cognitive skills that the test is designed to measure (Frederiksen & Collins,
1989, p.27). In 1993, for the first time, Alderson and Wall official introduced the

4


term “washback” with proven evidence from empirical studies. Since then, more
attention has been paid to washback with different definitions.
Washback or backwash in language assessment is generally known as
“the effect of testing on teaching and learning” (Hughes, 1989, p.1). Despite the
prevalent of washback in applied linguistic field, the term is hardly seen in
dictionaries. However, some dictionaries as the New Webster’s Comprehensive
Dictionary and the Collin Cobuild Dictionary can be found including backwash
which is defined as “the unwelcome repercussions of some social action” and
“unpleasant after-effect of an event or situation” respectively. These definitions
consist of an interestingly negative connotation which refers to the adverse
relationship between testing and teaching/ learning discussed later. (Cheng et al.,
2004). Alderson & Wall (1993) assume that washback renders “teachers and
learners to do things they would not necessarily otherwise do” (p.117). Messick
(1996) refers to washback as “the extent to which the introduction and the use of
a test influences language and teachers to do things they would not otherwise do
that promote or inhibit language learning” (p.241). “The connection between
testing and learning” is how Shohamy et al. (1996) defines the term.
In terms of scope, washback is divided into narrow and broad scope. In
the narrow scope, washback is more frequently refer to the effect of the test on
teaching and learning. Both Alderson and Wall (1993), Bailey (1996) and
Messick (1996) agree that “teachers and learners do things they would not
necessarily otherwise do because of the test (Alderson and Wall, 1993, p. 117).
In the broad scope, washback is just considered as a facet of consequential
validity which “encompasses all the consequence of the test”, covering the
concerns of its accurate intended-criteria measurement, its influence on the test
preparation; and its “social consequences of a test’s interpretation and use”
(Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, p.34). Bachman and Palmer (1996) utilizes the

term impact to refer to consequential validity, possibly “more broadly
encompassing the many consequences of the assessment prior and after a test
administration” (p.34). Therefore, washback is considered as one dimension of
impact (Hamp-Lyons, 1997). For illustration, Bachman and Palmer (1996)
5


consider test impact into two levels: micro- and macro- levels. The impacts on
individuals namely test-takers or teachers are at the micro level. At the macro
level, the test can affect the whole educational system and society.
In this study, the interpretation of “washback” in narrow scope will be
adopted: washback at the micro level which is the effects of the test on
individuals. More specifically, the effect of VSTEP on students in the aspects of
test preparation and attitudes.
2.2.2. The nature of washback
Regarding the nature of washback of a test, most studies mention the
dimension of value such as positive or negative. However,

according to

Watanabe (2000), there are four other dimensions namely specificity (general or
specific), intensity (strong or weak), length (long or short) and intentionality
(intended or unintended) (Cheng at al., 2004, p.20). In this minor thesis, only the
value and specificity of washback are discussed.
2.2.2.1. Positive versus negative
Alderson & Wall (1993) considers washback as a neutral term which
could be beneficial or negative. The positive washback would have beneficial
impacts such as promoting teaching learning activities, encouraging positive
attitudes toward the test and improving motivation (Alderson & Wall, 1993).
Shohamy (1993) also states that the test has positive washback if it forces

students to learn more such as listening more carefully or taking the study more
seriously. On the other hand, negative washback refers to the test anxiety and the
fear of poor performance; hence, focus on excessively on the skills tested
(Tsagari, 2011). Similarly, teachers might be afraid of the test results that they
may just focus on the test or narrow the curriculums. Another feature of negative
washback is that students review their notebooks and find books which are
related to the test (Damankesh & Babaii, 2015). In short, the positive washback
encourages the derisable changes while the negative washback bring undesirable
ones.

6


2.2.2.2. General versus specific
This dimension of washback indicates that the washback may be general
or specific. The general impact may be produced by any tests (i.e. students study
harder), whereas, if the washback is specific, it can be seen in only one aspect or
a type of test. Didi & Ridha (2011) state that the English national Examination
(ENE) has specific washback because the teachers focused more on reading
skills which were greater part of the test rather than communication skills.

2.2.3. Theoretical framework of washback
This part examines different models of washback of Hughes (1993), Bailey
(1996), Aldersom & Wall (1993) and Shih (2007). Firstly, a basic model of
washback been early proposed by Hughes (1993) in which three components
“participants”, “process” and “products” are differentiated. (Bailey, 1996, p.262)
According to Hughes, participants include students, classroom
teachers,
administrators,
materials

developers
and
publishers, ’all of whose perceptions and attitudes towards their
work may be affected by a test’ (1993: 2). Under process Hughes
(1993: 2) includes ’any actions taken by the participants which
may contribute to the process of learning’. Such processes
include materials development, syllabus design, changes in
teaching methodology, the use of learning and/or test-taking
strategies, etc. Finally, product refers to ’what is learned (facts,
skills, etc.) and the quality of the learning (fluency, etc.)’ (1993:
2)
(as cited in Bailey, 1996, p.262)
Hughes (1993) considers that the nature of the test would influence the
participants’ thinking toward learning and teaching; hence, the learning and
teaching behaviors (process) might be affected leading to an inversion in the
outcomes (products).

7


Figure 2.1. A basic model of washback (Hughes, 1993)
Despite showing the clear relation among the test and others elements
namely participants, process and products, the model does not include different
aspects affecting learning and teaching process.
Basing on model of Hughes (1993), especially participants and product,
Bailey (1996) construct his model comprising of two parts ’washback to the
learners’ which refer to “the effects of test-derived information on test-takers and
and “washback to the programme” which are washback to “teachers,
administrators, curriculum developers, counselors, etc.,”. (p.264)
Some examples of the “wash aback to the learners” are suggested by

Bailey (1993) as following:
1) Practicing items similar in format to those on the test.
2) Studying vocabulary and grammar rules.
3) Participating in interactive language practice (e.g., target language
conversations).
4) Reading widely in the target language.
5) Listening to non-interactive language (radio, television, etc.).
6) Applying test-taking strategies.
8


7) Enrolling in test-preparation courses.
8) Requesting guidance in their studying and feedback on their
performance.
9) Enrolling in, requesting or demanding additional (unscheduled)
test-preparation classes or tutorials (in addition to or in lieu of
other language classes).
10) Skipping language classes to study for the test.
(Bailey, 1996, p.264)
Nevertheless, the model does not indicate how different individual is
affected by the test. Alderson and Wall (1993)’s model which is considered more
in details (Pan, 2014) proposed the “Washback Hypothesis” taking a different
approach. There are “15 possible hypotheses regarding washback” as following:
1) A test will influence teaching.
2) A test will influence learning.
3) A test will influence what teachers teach; and
4) A test will influence how teachers teach; and therefore, by extension
from (2) above:
6) A test will influence how learners learn.
7) A test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching; and

8) A test will influence the rate and sequence of learning.
9) A test will influence the degree and depth of teaching; and
10) A test will influence the degree and depth of learning.
11) A test will influence attitudes to the content, method, etc., of
teaching and learning.
12) Tests that have important consequences will have washback;
and conversely
13) Tests that do not have important consequences will have no
washback.
14) Tests will have washback on all learners and teachers.
15) Tests will have washback effects for some learners and some
teachers, but not for others.
(Alderson and Wall, 1993, p. 120-121)
The washback on students are now demonstrated in more aspects namely
how and what learners learn, the rate, sequence, degree, and depth of learning
and the attitude to content and method of teaching.
Shih’s study (2007) built a new and more detailed model on washback on
students with a thought that the previous models are not suitable any more. The
model shows the variety of test components which might exert impacts, the
different aspects on students’ learning and psychology and other factors such as
extrinsic and intrinsic ones. As can be seen from the chart, washback of the test
9


on students learning includes content of learning, total time on learning, learning
strategies, learning motivation and test anxiety. However, how each aspect of
learning as mentioned is affected by the test is not demonstrated.

Figure 2.2. A washback model of students’ learning (Shih, 2007, p.151)
Four frameworks of washback have been examine, while Hughes’s(1993)

model do not displays different aspects of learning and teaching, Bailey (1996)
adds some example of washback on students. However, the framework of
washback does not show how each individual is influenced. The Washback
Hypothesis (Alderson & Wall, 1993) has predicted the influences of washback
on both students and teachers on different aspects. Nevertheless, Shih (2007) has
presented another model which is claimed to be more modern and focus more on
students.
10


In this research, the model of Shih (2007) is adopted as it is more students
focus. Five aspects of washback on students learning and psychology are also
concurred by Ferman (2004) (cited in Cheng at al., 2004)
2.3. English language proficiency tests
To study washback, different examinations are investigated. As most of
them are language proficiency tests, the following part concentrates explaining
this test type and give some typical examples.
2.3.1. Communicative language proficiency
Communicative Language Testing (CLT) is an original approach toward
language testing, which focuses on the authenticity and communicative purposes
of the test. Proficiency test “is designed to measure people’s ability in a
language, regardless of any training they may have had in that language” (Brown
and Abeywickrama, 2010, p.11). Besides, it is also stressed that the test is not
restricted

to any course or skills. Therefore, a communicative language

proficiency test examines the overall English of test-takers for communicative
purposes.
Most communicative language proficiency tests have summative results

which present a single score with 2-3 sub scores. These sub scores are less likely
to give any feedback or serve diagnosis function; hence, students can only
interpreting their scores by looking at the rubrics.

2.3.2. Major proficiency tests
There are hundreds of proficiency tests worldwide. The following
section solely introduces an international test, TOEFL and a national
examination, VSTEP which are now highly concerned in Vietnam.
TOEFL iBT
TOEFL is one of the most trustworthy English tests worldwide given via
computer. The test is primarily sponsored by American Educational Testing
Service (EST). The purpose of TOEFL iBT is to assess test-takers’ English
proficiency whose English are not native language. The results are primarily
11


employed to decide the international students’ ability of English in academic
context.
The table below is the demonstration of the TOEFL iBT test structure.
The test includes four sections Reading, Listening, Speaking and Writing allotted
in about four hours. Each skill makes up 30 scores to set the total score of 120.
Detailed information of each skill follows.
Table 2.3. The structure of the TOEFL iBT Test
Section

Number

of Testing time

Score Scale

items/ tasks
Reading

36–70

60–100 minutes

0-30

Listening

34–51

60–90 minutes

0-30

Break

10 minutes

Speaking

6 tasks

20 minutes

0-30

Writing

2 tasks

50 minutes

0-30

Total

Approximately 4 0 - 120
hours

As it can be seen from the format, the aim of communicative language is
quite clear. Firstly, the test content resembles university-life context such as the
lectures, conversations with friends and scholarly passage. In addition to
language skills, other necessary skills of university are tested as well namely
giving opinions, summarizing the passage, and analyzing the information.
VSTEP
VSTEP 3-5 is the first ever Vietnam Standardized Test of English
Proficiency issued by University of Languages and International Studies (VNU),
VNUH since May 2015. It is to serve the national language assessment purpose
of the National Foreign Language Project 2020.
The test is aimed to measure Vietnamese adult’s English ability according
to the CEFR-based National level 3-5 Proficiency Scale. The result which is
recognized nationwide can be used for gate-keeping function, placement
decision or in guiding English-language instruction. In VNUH, students have to
12

achieve a certain level to be admitted to a program or to graduate from the
university.
VSTEP is based on Bachman (2002) and Bachman and Palmer (2010)
theory, and validation framework which is Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR), and simultaneously focus on test uses. To
illustrate, it is constructed to match Vietnamese studying and working
environment with some contents of Vietnamese culture, economy and
community integrated the tasks.
VSTEP 3-5 measure level 3 to 5 from National 6-level Proficiency Scale,
which is compatible with level B1, B2, C1 from CEFR. The details are
demonstrated in the following table:
Table 2.4. VSTEP Background (Carr et al., 2016)
Score

Level

CEFR

0 – 3.5

Not rated

Not rated

4.0 – 5.5

3

B1

6.0 – 8.0

4

B2

8.5 - 10

5

C1

The test comprises of 4 section each assess a skill. Test-takers spend
nearly 3 hours completing the test. Each skill makes up 10 points and the total
score, which is on the scale 10, is the average of 4 skills. The test format is
presented in the Appendix 4.
2.4. The studies of washback
2.4.1. The studies of washback in the world
There are numerous studies of washback on teachers worldwide;
however, washback studies on students remains in shortage (Shih, 2007).
Watanabe (2004) emphasized on the need of more work on learners. Although
washback is various in different contexts and individuals, the researchers agree
that the aspects of washback on students include behavioral aspects and
altitudinal aspects. Various impacts on these aspects have been explored.
13


Shohamy et al.(1996) investigate the washback of two different tests
namely ASL and EFL from perspectives of teachers, students and language
inspectors. The results show two different pictures. While the ASL has almost

no effect on the teaching and learning activities, test preparation and time
allotment, the EFL has tremendous washback. Although the teachers show
negative attitudes toward the two tests’ quality, the tests are still in need for
learning promotion.
Pan (2014) examines the washback of TOEIC & GEPT as graduation
requirements by doing survey, asking question and observing two groups
including non-exist requirement students and exist requirement students. When
looking at the aspect of degree/ depth of learning, attitude toward methods of
learning and some learners but not others being influenced” (Alderson & Wall,
1993), Pan divides the questionnaire into three parts types of test-preparation
activities, type of language skill-building activities, viewpoint of the GEPT and
TOEIC. The results show that although the performance and motivation of the
exist requirement group higher, the learning methods of two group are not
significantly different.
Damankesh & Babaii (2015) investigate a highschool final examination
and explore the washback on students’ test-taking and test-preparation strategies.
The results show that the examination influences students’ learning behaviors by
getting them take certain types of test-taking and test-preparation strategies. The
washback is partly negative as some strategies have adverse effect on students’
creativity and inhibit their learning. On the other hand, the test has some slightly
positive influences which foster the students’ cognition and attention.
In 2017, Green investigates the effectiveness of IELTS preparation class
on students’ writing scores. Students had to take two writing tests prior and after
the preparation course. In addition to the test instrument, there were two
questionnaires to gain data of participants’ different background and the “process
and outcome variables.” It was concluded that the test preparation brought no
apparent benefit to students’ test scores. Another study on TOEFL (Alderson &
14

Hamp-Lyons, 1996), however, brings an opposite result that the test had
influence on both what and how teachers teach.
Different communicative proficiency tests have been studies all over the
world from international levels such as IELTS and TOFEL, national levels such
as ASL, EFL and GEPT to the local tests such as highschool examination. The
results are varied among the studies. At the same scale, while TOFEL had
washback on teachers on both how and what they teach, the IELTS preparation
did not have apparent washback. Therefore, the test washback might not be
affected by the test nature only. In order to understand washback, specific
contexts need investigating. In the context of Vietnam, nevertheless, there are
only few studies.
2.4.1. The studies of washback in Vietnam
In Vietnam, there are three studies of washback, only one of which is
about the VSTEP, the newly designed test in Vietnam. The other two studies
international examinations such as TOEFL (Nguyen , 1997 & Barnes, 2016)
Nguyen (2017) study the washback of VSTEP on first year students at
ULIS, VNUH. The two aspects of behaviors and attitudes were examine by likert
scale questionnaires. It is found that the test had strong washback on learning
content, learning methods and affective conditions.
However, no study of washback in Vietnam has focused on non-English
majored students.
Chapter summary
This chapter has reviewed the language testing context and given an
insight view about washback definition, nature and different models. This study
adopts the narrow definition of washback, studies washback value and specificity
and applies the model of Shih (2007). Two typical language proficiency tests
were introduced followed by a number of studies worldwide and in Vietnam.
There are a multitude of washback research on teachers but few studies have
studied the washback on students particularly in Vietnam context.

15


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Context
In Vietnam, the status of English has recently heightened thanks to the
Project 2020 by Prime Minister (2008). To achieve the goals that most
Vietnamese when graduating from universities and colleges could use English
in Dailey conversation, the VSTEP 5 levels was issued. Most university students
have to pass certain levels of the test in order to graduate from schools. Other
compatible international certificates such as IELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC are also
accepted.
The School of Law, VNUH, also adopts the VSTEP as the graduation
proficiency assessment (GPA). The VSTEP level 3 or the alternative
international tests is the precondition for students to graduate from the school.
Only fast-track students have to achieve the level 4. As the certificates are valid
in two years, most students consider taking the test in the second half of their
students’ life. It should also be noted that these students can take the test at any
time they find convenient.
3.2. Research questions
This study examines 3 research questions:
1. What are students’ perceptions toward the English graduation proficiency
assessment?
By answering this question, the researcher penetrates how students
perceive the test and if they are negatively or positively influenced. Their
perceptions towards the GPA may also explain their behaviors.
2. To what extent does the graduation proficiency assessment influence
students’ preparation strategies (from students’ perspective)?
This question aims to investigate students’ reflection/perspectives
regarding their behavior during the preparation phase to see whether the GPA

exerts washback on them, whether those impacts are strong or week, negative or
positive, general or specific.

16