Tipos de estrategia

Wall’s (2005) study was highly influential in washback research, and it made significant contributions to the understanding of the complex washback phenomenon. However, the study had some limitations owing to the design and context of the study.

2.7.7.1 Contributions

Wall’s (2005) study used innovation literature in her research to propose ways of exploring the complex aspects of washback by:

 Providing an operationalized model for researching washback;

 Providing practical guidelines for the planning and management of change

within an educational context;

 Pioneering a mixed methods approach to washback research.

The points in the practical guidelines above offer some explanation of why the new test failed to bring about the expected changes in particular aspects of teaching in Sri Lanka.

70

For example, Wall (2005) highlighted the importance of the contextual factors for teaching and showed that an understanding of this context could help to explain the failure of the reform to bring change in the Sri Lankan English Language Education.

For example, although there was the anticipation that the test would bring changes in how teachers teach, it was found that no relationship was found between the methodology that the teachers used and the methodology recommended in the textbook. The methodologies observed in class did not seem to be relevant to the skills that were needed for success on the new test.

Wall (2005) explained these discrepancies by referring to features of the context. These included teachers’ lack of command of communicative teaching techniques

and misunderstanding of the basic principles of the textbook.

This is an indication of the importance of the social context beyond the assessment itself in determining the intentions of curriculum change. In this regard, it is important to state that the present study focuses on the effects of assessment change on teaching within the ELSP, where a special training (see Chapter 1 – section 1.5) and a teacher guide with resource material (see Chapter 3 – section 3.4.3) were given to teachers in assisting their communicative teaching of speaking. Given these training and resources were available to the teachers.

It will be of interest for the present study to find out whether the methodology that the teachers use in their speaking classes are as intended by the policy makers by providing more class time for student-centred activities in the classroom.

A number of writers have observed that investigation of a complex phenomenon such as washback needs a holistic approach covering both classroom settings

71

(micro-level), and social settings (macro-level) (Messick 1989, Bachman and Palmer 1996, Cheng 2005). Wall (2005) pioneered and employed such an approach – observation of classroom teaching activities and interviewing people such as textbook and test designers – to investigate the effect of the new test.

2.7.7.2 Research gaps

Although Wall’s (2005) study has been highly influential, it was not without research gaps. Theyincluded:

 Lack of direct student participation: students were not directly involved to

obtain their points of view about the test;

 No test of Speaking was included. It is considered as a limitation (even

though it was not a weakness of the research design – discussed in detailed below) because one of the important findings of Wall’s (2005) study was that the new GCE O level examination had no effects on teachers’ methodology. However, it might be a different finding if speaking was included in the new test;

 Lack of baseline evidence regarding classroom activities and teaching

methodologies. It was not clear whether speaking was focused onbefore the implementation of the new test. If speaking was focused, there might be a change in teachers’ methodology when compared with teaching other skills (reading, writing, and listening);

 Geographical restrictions: participants from a particular geographical area

72

Wall (2005) obtained students’ views about the new test through their teachers, acknowledging that: ‘It was not possible during this project to elicit students’ views directly, however, it was possible to analyse what the teachers had to say about their students and to find out connections between these descriptions and the ways in which the teachers managed their teaching’ (p.232).

Other washback studies have shown that students’ attitudes, motivations, learning styles, and learning strategies are important factors in mediating washback, and students should be directly involved in providing their perceptions and understanding of an assessment change and associated teaching and learning activities (Bailey 1999, Wall 1999, Cheng 2005, Wall and Horák 2006, Tsagari 2007), since these may not be what their teachers believe them to be (Wesdorp 1982, Alderson and Hamp-Lyons 1996, Perrin 2000, Lumley and Stoneman 2000, Tsagari 2007).

Another short-coming of the study, although beyond Wall’s (2005) control, is that it did not include a test of speaking. In fact, the new Sri Lankan O level test was meant to include all four skills (Pearson 1994). In 1986, the Ministry of Education in Sri Lanka decided to conduct a centrally designed and marked reading and writing English examination for GCE O level, and a series of teacher designed and assessed school based assessments (SBA) which would focus on listening and speaking.

Unfortunately, as Wall (2005) explained, the SBA component was subsequently withdrawn without any official reasons and the centrally designed written paper became only means of assessing students’ English.

73

It was against this background, that Wall (2005) found in her study that speaking was not focused on in the lessons observed and the new GCE O level examination had no impact on teachers’ methodology. She suggested that teachers’ limited focus on speaking might be explained by the fact that the textbook devoted more units to reading and writing than speaking. On the other hand, the influence of the new test could be the reason for the teachers’ relatively greater focus on reading.

However, it was not clear whether there might have been a change in teachers’

methodology if speaking had been a focus.

Wall (2005) argued that it is important to analyse not only the pedagogic practices, but also to analyse geographical factors, an important element in the characteristics of the user system in washback studies. However, Wall (2005) explained that prevailing unrest in a particular geographical area in Sri Lanka (the Northern and Eastern part of Sri Lanka) prevented teachers from those areas from participating in the research.

This study will try to address some of the issues identified in Wall’s study.

It will include students as important participants whose perceptions and understanding of the assessment change – testing speaking at the national and school levels – are gathered through a questionnaire survey (see Chapter 3 – sections 3.3 and 3.4.1.3).

The present study focuses on speaking as a key communicative skill since Wall’s (2005) study found that speaking was not focused on by teachers who prepared students for the new GCE O level examination which did not include a speaking test. I try to find whether the policy makers’ intentions that testing speaking at two

74

levels – the school level and the national level – has encouraged teachers to focus on speaking skills in their classroom teaching activities and whether the decision to test speaking has any effects on teachers’ methodology.

This study will obtain detailed information on the extent to which teachers focused on speaking activities before the introduction of speaking assessments through interviews with participants at the intervening level. This will enable me to compare whether the decision to test speaking has any effects on teachers’ focus on speaking.

While Wall (2005) was unable to include the Eastern part of Sri Lanka in her study, this study focussed on the Eastern region of Batticaloa. However, this study did not have the level of resources of Wall’s project, which was funded by the British Overseas Development Administration and had two teams involved in the project (a team from Lancaster University and a Sri Lankan team), it could not cover the whole country.