washback, washback factors, teacher factor, washback mechanism


Abstract: Washback, or the effects of tests on learning and teaching, is one of the important test qualities (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). There have been a number of empirical studies on washback of different tests on different stakeholders and their actions under the test use such as those by Cheng (1997), Brown (1997), Shih (2009), Pizarro (2010), Nguyen (2017), McKinley & Thompson (2018), Xu & Liu (2018), to name but a few. The results of such studies have shown washback of different tests vary in terms of mechanism, direction, and intensity to teaching and learning. This study focuses on exploring the washback of the high-stakes English tests in the Vietnamese National High School Graduation Exam on the teaching of EFL high school teachers. There were six teachers, who were teaching English to students at grade 12 in the research site of Buon Ma Thuot City (Dalak Province, Vietnam) purposefully selected for the study. As a case study, the research employed was a two-phase explanatory design with the use of a questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The findings reveal that various aspects of teaching, such as the teachers ‘choices of textbook coverage, time allotment for teaching content, provision of extracurricular content, in-class assessment tasks, their choices of teaching methods, application of new teaching techniques, choices of classroom organization and language for instructions were affected by the high—stakes English tests. In addition, the study discloses the unique teacher factors of the participants in the study under the influences of the tests.



  1. Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2012). A review of pedagogical implications of examination
  2. washback. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(7), 11-21.
  3. Ahmed, N. (2015). The washback effects of teaching academics IELTS on Emirati
  4. students’ language proficiency at a technical high school in Abu Dhabi. The
  5. British University in Dubai, Dubai.
  6. Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002a). An analysis of some unintended and negative
  7. consequences of high stakes testing. East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes
  8. Center for Education Research and Practice. Retrieved from
  9. https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/EPSL-0211-125-EPRU.pdf
  10. Alderson, J. D., & Wall, D, (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics,
  11. (2), 115-129.
  12. Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK:
  13. Oxford University Press.
  14. Bailey, K. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in
  15. language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257-279.
  16. Barnes, M (2017). Washback: Exploring what constitutes “good” teaching practices.
  17. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Elsevier Ltd.
  18. Brown, J. D. (1997). The washback effect of language tests. University of Hawaii
  19. Working Papers in ESL, 16(1), 27-45.
  20. Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong
  21. Kong. Language and Education, 11(1), 38-54.
  22. Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y. J., & Curtis, A. (Eds.). (2004). Washback in language
  23. testing: Research contexts and methods. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaym.
  24. Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of
  25. testing on teaching and learning. Retrieved from
  26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442280.pdf
  27. Cholis, H. & Rizqi, F. (2018). Senior high school English teachers’ perceptions
  28. on a high-stakes test (SBMPTN): A washback study. International Journal
  29. of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(3), 47-52. doi:
  30. 7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.47
  31. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
  32. ed.). London: Routledge.
  33. Green, A. (2013). Washback in language assessment. International Journal of
  34. English Studies, 13(2), 39-51. Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online
  35. ISSN: 1989-6131.
  36. Herman, L. J. & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and
  37. learning- Another look. National Center for Research on Evaluation.
  38. Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished manuscript. University of Reading, England. Standards and Student Testing.
  39. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd edition). Cambridge
  40. University Press. Retrieved from
  41. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/2003268576.pdf
  42. Hsu, H-F. (2009). The impact of implementing English proficiency tests as a
  43. graduation requirement at Taiwanese university of technology. University of
  44. York. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/40039368.pdf
  45. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & principles in language
  46. teaching (3rd edition). Oxford University Press.
  47. Liauh, Y-H.E. (20111). A study of the perceptions of English faculty and students of
  48. exit English examinations at Taiwan’s technological and vocational higher
  49. Education Institutions. Graduate student theses, Dissertations & Professional Papers. 1331. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1331
  50. McKinley, J. & Thompson, F. (2018). Washback effect in teaching English as an
  51. international language. TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
  52. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language testing.
  53. Retrieved at https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-96-17.pdf
  54. Nguyen, Thuong. (2017). Vietnam’s National Foreign Language 2020 Project after
  55. years: A Difficult Stage. The International Academic Forum. Retrieved
  56. from: https://bit.ly/3ozaUQ9
  57. Nguyen, H. & Gu, Y. (2020). Impact of TOEIC Listening and Reading as a
  58. university exit test in Vietnam. Language Assessment Quarter, DOI:
  59. 1080/15434303.2020.1722672
  60. Newman, W.L. (2000). Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
  61. Onaiba, E-M. & Mustaf, A. (2014). Investigating the washback effect of a revised
  62. EFL public examination on teachers’ instructional practices, materials, and
  63. curriculum. University of Leicester. Thesis. https://hdl.handle.net/2381/28561
  64. Pizarro, M. A. (2010). Exploring the washback effects of a high-stakes English test on the teaching of English
  65. in Spanish upper secondary schools. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglese, 23(2010), 149-170.
  66. Richard, C.J. (2006). Communicative language leaching today. New York:
  67. Cambridge University Press.
  68. Shih, C. M. (2009). How tests change teaching: A model for reference. English
  69. teaching: Practice and critique, 8(2), 188-206. Retrieved at
  70. http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2009v8n2dial1.pdf
  71. Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited:
  72. washback effect over time. Language Testing, 13(3), 298–317. Retrieved at
  73. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300305
  74. Smith, M. K. (2018). ‘What is teaching?’. In The encyclopedia of pedagogy and
  75. informal education. Retrieved at https://infed.org/mobi/what-is-teaching/
  76. Sukyadi, D. & Mardiani, R. (2011). The washback effect of the English national
  77. examination (ENE) on English teachers’ classroom teaching and students’
  78. learning. Kata, 13(1), 96-111.
  79. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  80. Watanabe, Y. (2013). The national center test for university admissions. Language
  81. testing, 30 (4), 565-573.
  82. Vietnamese
  83. Nguyễn Thúy Lan. (2017). Một số tác động của bài thi đánh giá năng lực tiếng Anh
  84. theo chuẩn đầu ra đối với việc dạy tiếng Anh tại trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ-
  85. Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 33 (4), 122-136