Impact of the preparatory school’s final English proficiency exam on students’ productive skills

Öz

This qualitative case study investigated the impact of a university preparatory school’s final English proficiency exam on students’ productive skills (speaking and writing) and on their emotions and opinions about learning English. 40 students and 7 instructors from a foundation university in Türkiye participated in the study. Data were collected through students’ written and spoken tasks, open-ended surveys, and instructors’ assessment notes, and analyzed using content analysis. Findings indicate that the overall exam had more varied impacts on students than each of the specific tests for speaking and writing. The impact of the exam on students’ emotions and opinions ranged from positive to negative. Among the productive skills, speaking elicited more negative emotional reactions than writing. While both speaking and writing skills were positively impacted by the exam, the effect was stronger on speaking skills, especially for students with higher proficiency levels. In contrast, no clear relationship was found between proficiency levels and the impact on writing skill. In that, higher proficiency did not correlate with greater improvement. These results suggest that the broader the exam content, the more complex its influence on learners is. The findings have implications for educators and test developers, emphasizing the importance of designing low-stakes exams that encourage positive outcomes and reduce anxiety, especially in the assessment of productive skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alternative assessment of productive skills
• Washback
• Error analysis
• Low-stakes exams
• Testing in tertiary education

References

1. Adelman, C., Jenkins, D., & Kemmis, S. (1976). Re‐thinking case study: Notes from the second Cambridge Conference. Cambridge Journal of Education, 6(3), 139 150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764760060306
2. Alderson, I.C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115 129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115
3. Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
4. Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Pearson Education.
5. Çakıldere, B. & Akpınar, K.D. 2013). Washback effects of high-stakes language tests of Turkey (KPDS and ÜDS) on productive and receptive skills of academic personnel. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 9(2), 81-94.
6. Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing testing on teaching and learning. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 3-17). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
8. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research. Pearson Education.

9. Dağtan, E. (2012). An examination on the wasback effect of the Interuniversity Board Foreign Language Test (The example of Dicle University) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Dicle University.
10. Duran, Ö. (2011). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions about classroom-based speaking tests and their washback [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bilkent University.
11. Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: Advanced resource book. Routledge.
12. Gall, J.P., Gall, M.D., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
13. Genç, Ö. (2019). İngilizce öğretim elemanlarının ölçme ve değerlendirme okuryazarlık yeterliliği açısından değerlendirilmesi (Erciyes Üniversitesi örneği) [Evaluation of English instructors’ assessment literacy competencies]. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Erciyes University.
14. Giraldo, F. (2020). Task Based language assessment: Implications for the language classroom. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 21, 209 224. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.828
15. Green, A. (2013). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action. Routledge.
16. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher. Routledge.
17. Hung, S.A., & Huang, H.D. (2019). Standardized proficiency tests in a campuswide English curriculum: A washback study. Language Testing in Asia, 9(21), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0096-5
18. Karabulut, A. (2007). Micro level impacts of foreign language test (university entrance examination) in Türkiye: A washback study, [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Iowa State University.
19. Köktürk, S. (2015). Washback effects of examinations on teaching and learning English in Gazi University Preparatory School [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
20. Merriam, S.B. (1988) Case study research in education. Jossey Bass.
21. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Proficient. In Merriam Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved April 20, 2025, from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/proficient
22. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241 256. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300302
23. Nitko, A., & Brookhart, S. (2013). Educational assessment of students. Pearson New International Edition.
24. Özmen, K.S. (2011a). Analyzing washback effect of SEPPPO on prospective English teachers. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 7(2), 24-52.
25. Özmen, K.S. (2011b). Washback effect of the inter-university foreign language examination on foreign language competences of candidate academics. Novitas Research on Youth and Language, 5(2), 215-228.
26. Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.
27. Qi, L. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback of high-stakes test. Language Testing, 22(2), 142-173. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt300oa
28. Sarı, S.Y. (2018). The impact of instutional tests on teachers’ teaching methodologies [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Çağ University.
29. Sato, T. (2019). An investigation of factors involved in Japanese students’ English learning behavior during test preparation. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 8(1), 69-95.
30. Sevimli, S. (2007). Washback effects of foreign language component of the university entrance examination on the teaching and learning context of English language groups in secondary education [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Gaziantep.
31. Shih, C.M., (2007). A new washback model of students’ learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 135-162.
32. Shohamy, E. (1998). Inside the “black box” of classroom language tests [Special issue in honor of Kari Sajaavara]. Studies Anglica Posnaniensia, 33, 343-352.
33. Stake, R. (2000). Qualitative case studies. In K.N. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Routledge.
34. Tsagari, D., & Cheng, L. (2017). Washback, impact, and consequences revisited. In E. Shohamy, I.G. Or & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment (pp. 359-372). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_24
35. Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374 402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046
36. Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment (pp. 291-302). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37. Watanabe, Y. (1996). Investigating washback in Japanese EFL classrooms: Problems and methodology. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 208-239.
38. Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997
39. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). SAGE