High-Stakes Test Impact on Student Motivation to Learn

Abstract

This paper reports on a study that explored the impacts of the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) English test on students’ motivation to learn English. Unlike previous studies on test impact, this study has extensively explored both the pre-test and post-test impacts of the test on students’ motivation to learn English. The data generated through a longitudinal survey among 247 SEE candidates and semi-structured interviews with six students and their parents in both the pre-test and post-test contexts indicates that the majority of students (79%) were motivated to learn English in the pre-test context but more than half of the students (54%) were discouraged from learning English in the post-test context. There were several reasons behind their demotivation to learn English in the post-test context including unfair judgement in the test and poor conduction of its speaking test. Pedagogical implications of the study have been discussed.

Keywords

• High-stakes
• student motivation
• test impact
• test fairness

Kaynakça

1. Abu-Alhija, F. N. (2007). Large-scale testing: Benefits and pitfalls. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(1), 50–68.
2. Allen, D. (2016). Investigating washback to the learner from the IELTS test in the Japanese tertiary context. Language Testing in Asia, 6(7), 1–20.
3. BERA (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th Edition). London: BERA.
4. Cheng, L. (1998). Impact of a public English examination change on students’ perceptions and attitudes toward their English learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 279–301.
5. Cheng, L., Klinger, D., Fox, J., Doe, C., Jin, Y., & Wu, J. (2014). Motivation and test anxiety in test performance across three testing contexts: The CAEL, CET, and GEPT. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 300–330.
6. Choi, I. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25(1), 39–62.
7. Chu, M., Guo, Q., & Leighton, J. P. (2014). Students’ interpersonal trust and attitudes towards standardised tests: Exploring affective variables related to student assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 21(2), 167–192.
8. Dawadi, S. (2018). The impacts of the School Leaving Certificate examination on English language teaching and student motivation to learn English. In D. Hayes (Ed.), English language teaching in Nepal: Research, reflection and practice (pp. 133–164). Kathmandu: British Council, Nepal.

9. Dawadi, S., & Shrestha, P. N. (2018). Construct validity of the Nepalese school leaving English reading test. Educational Assessment, 23(2), 102-120 . Dawadi, S. (2016). CLT in Nepal in response to students’ need. Journal of NELTA Lamjung, 1(1), 24–31.
10. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
11. Gardner, R. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dornyei & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1–19). University of Hawai’i: Honolulu.
12. Gardener, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London: Arnold.
13. Hsu, H. (2009). The impact of implementing English proficiency tests as a graduation requirement at Taiwanese universities of technology. An unpublished PhD thesis. University of York, England.
14. Huang, D. (2010). The social and educational impact of the College English Test in China. An unpublished PhD thesis: University of Aberdeen: England. Kwon, S. K., Lee, M., & Shin, D. (2017). Educational assessment in the Republic of Korea: lights and shadows of high-stake exam-based education system. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(1), 60–77.
15. Li, H., Zhong, Q., & Suen, H. K. (2012). Students ’ perceptions of the impact of the college English test. Language Testing in Asia, 2(3), 77–94. Life, J. (2011). Motivation and EFL university students in North-East Asia. Asian EFL Journal, 13(2), 11–41.
16. Loumbourdi, L. (2014). The power and impact of standardized test: Investigating the washback of language exams in Greece. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mathema, K. B., & Bista, M. B. (2006). Sudy on student performance in SLC. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education and Sports.
17. McNamara, T. (2007). Language assessment in foreign language education : The struggle over constructs. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 280–282. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.
18. Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: High-stakes testing policies and their relations with psychological theories and research. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354– 372). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
20. Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language Testing, 13(3), 298–317.
21. Takagi, A. (2010). A critical analysis of English language entrance examinations at Japanese Universities. An unpublished PhD thesis. University of Exter: England.
22. Tsagari, K. (2006). Investigating the washback effect of EFL exam in the Greek context : Participants’ perceptions, material design and classroom applications. An unpublished PhD thesis. Lancaster University: England.
23. Tsai, Y., & Tsou, C. H. (2009). A standardised English language proficiency test as the graduation benchmark: Student perspectives on its application in higher education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 319–330.
24. Xiao, Y., & Carless, D. R. (2013). Illustrating students’ perceptions of English language assessment: Voices from China. RELC Journal, 44(3), 319–340.
25. Zhan, Y., & Andrews, S. (2014). Washback effects from a high-stakes examination on out-of-class English learning: insights from possible self theories. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 71–89.