Advertisement

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of TEM and Its Washback

  • Qian Xu
  • Jun Liu
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents research findings from the questionnaire surveys. The responses of experts, program administrators, teachers and students will be analyzed one by one, to identify their respective evaluation of TEM and its washback, and then a comparison would be made to identify areas of agreement and divergence.

Bibliography

  1. C. Alderson, D. Wall, Does washback exist? [J]. Appl. Linguis. 14(2), 116–129 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association(APA), National Council on Measurement in Education(NCME), Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing [Z] (AERA, APA, NCME, Washington, DC, 1985)Google Scholar
  3. L. Cheng, Changing Language Teaching through Language Testing: A Washback Study [M] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar
  4. L. Cheng, Washback, impact and consequences. [A], in Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 7: Language Testing and Assessment, ed. by E. Shohamy, N. H. Hornberger (Eds), 2nd edn., (Springer, New York, 2008), pp. 349–364Google Scholar
  5. L. Cheng, Voices from test takers: Further evidence for language assessment and use [J]. Educ. Assess. 16, 104–122 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Cohen, The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies [J]. Lang. Assess. Q. 3, 307–331 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Green, IELTS Washback in Context [M] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar
  8. X. Gu, Positive or Negative—an Empirical Study of CET Washback [M] (Chongqing University Press, Chongqing, 2007)Google Scholar
  9. L. Hamp-Lyons, Fairness in language testing [A], in Fairness and Validation in Language Assessment, Studies in Language Testing 9, ed. by A. Kunnan (Ed), (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000a), pp. 30–34Google Scholar
  10. L. Hamp-Lyons, Social, professional and individual responsibility in language testing [J]. System 28, 579–591 (2000b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Hughes, Backwash and TOEFL 2000 [Z]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Reading, 1993Google Scholar
  12. A. Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers [M] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)Google Scholar
  13. M. Kane, Current concerns in validity theory [J]. J. Educ. Meas. 38(4), 319–342 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. A. Moss, J. Girard, C. Haniford, Validity in educational assessment [J]. Rev. Res. Educ. 30, 109–162 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D. Wall, Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory [J]. Lang. Test. 13(3), 334–354 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D. Wall, The Impact of High-Stakes Examinations on Classroom Teaching: A Case Study Using Insights from Testing and Innovation Theory [M] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qian Xu
    • 1
  • Jun Liu
    • 2
  1. 1.Shanghai International Studies UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Shanghai University of Electric PowerShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations