The Washback of the Final Test on Students’ Learning Behavior
Sajidin Sajidin, Andang Saehu and Rahayu Kariadinata
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, Jl. A.H. Nasution No.105, Bandung, Indonesia
{sajidin, andangsaehu, rahayu.kariadinata}@uinsgd.ac.id
Keywords: Washback, Structure, Final Test, English Language, Learning Attitude.
Abstract: The research is aimed to describe the students’ learning perception and behaviour in facing the final test of
structure subject (UAS). An in-depth analysis was employed to the data collected from the questionnaires,
observation and interviews. In this case, 83 students took a part to fill in the questionnaires and 10 students
were interviewed to confirm the findings from the questionnaire. Questionnaire result shows that the students
have different perceptions on the UAS. Although UAS is difficult, they mostly said that it is of great
importance for their English language skills improvement and for English Education Department quality.
Observation result shows that the majority of respondents, both those preparing for the final test inside and
outside campus area, set up extra time for learning structure, replaced the textbooks with worksheets or
TOEFL, drilled exercises through online, did consultation with lecturers, joined informal education, joined
English coaching clinic, and learnt collaboratively did religious activities, got stressed, and prepared small
notes for cheating. Interview results show that the majority of students invited English teachers to teach at
home, created a structure group in WhatsApp application, took notes on some small blank papers for cheating,
got stressed and did religious activities such as praying and fasting. These learning behaviors were due to the
fact that the students were worried about not being able to take the next structure subjects.
1 INTRODUCTION
The subject of Structure has been taught in English
Education Department of UIN Sunan Gunung Djati
Bandung from the second to the fourth semesters for
Structure I, II, and III (UIN Sunan Gunung Djati,
2015). To see the students’ ability in mastering the
subject, say Structure I, and to take the Structure II in
the next semester, the students require to join the final
test conducted at the end of the semester. The
implementation of the structure final test could
potentially affect positively or negatively the
students’ learning behaviours.
With regard to the effect or commonly known as
washback (Alderson and Wall, 1993; Bachman,
2004; Brown, 2004; Cheng, 2005; Green, 2007; and
McNamara, 2000), the phenomenon of how test affect
the learning behaviour has been studied by several
previous researchers. For example, Alderson and
Wall (1993) used English National Examination in
Sri Lanka; Manjares and Alvarez (2005) used English
National Examination in Columbia; Qi (2005) used
the National Matriculation English Test in China,
Hui-Fen (2009) used University Entrance test in
Japan; and Tsagari (2009) used First Certificate in
English in Greek. In Indonesian context, Sukyadi and
Mardiani (2011) used English National Examination.
Considering the use of high-stakes tests by the
previous researchers aforementioned, the result
shows that any kinds of high-stakes tests produce
washback.
One thing different between the present study and
those of previous ones is the uniqueness of high-takes
test. Structure Subject is considered high-stakes test
as the students failed the Structure I would not be
allowed to take Structure II or those failed Structure
III would not be allowed to take Syntax Subject (UIN
Sunan Gunung Djati, 2015). Therefore, this study is
aimed at revealing the learning behaviours that are
influenced by washback effect of Structure Final Test
to see the changes happening in the classroom or
outside classroom.
2 METHODS
This study employed a qualitative method, using a
case site context combined with several data
collection techniques consisting of observation,
questionnaire, and interview.
256
Sajidin, S., Saehu, A. and Kariadinata, R.
The Washback of the Final Test on Students’ Learning Behavior.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education (ICSE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 256-261
ISBN: 978-989-758-316-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
Observation was used to discover further details
of the impact of Structure Final Test both inside
campus and outside campus area. This “refers to the
data observed by a researcher who directly observes
study’s research participant” (Anastas, 2005). This
presents a more accurate picture of reality although it
is “a time-consuming process to capture the required
behaviour” (Cohen, et al. 2007). This was conducted
amounting to seven sessions whose share was four
times inside campus observations and three times
outside campus observations.
As the study involved 83 respondents, a
questionnaire tends to be suited to involving a large
number of subjects. Thus, the close-ended
questionnaire in the form of Yes/No option was
employed to reveal the respondents’ experiences in
facing the final test of structure. As the form of
questionnaire was close-ended item, the open-ended
items were covered through interviews to clarify or
confirm the answers to the questionnaire. For
example, the questionnaire asked “Is the final test
structure important?” the answer could be chosen was
Yes or No. To clarify their answers, the interview was
addressed to 10 selected respondents. The
respondents’ selection was based on the unique
activities performed by them in dealing with the final
test of structure, such as doing consultation, doing
religious activities, getting stressed, learning
collaboratively, joining informal education, drilling
through online, setting up extra time, and preparing
small notes for cheating.
3 FINDING AND DISCUSSION
The study revealed two data findings including the
respondents’ perception toward the final test of
structure and their learning behaviours affected by the
final test of structure.
3.1 Respondents’ Perception of the
Final Test of Structure
The finding on the respondents’ perception was
gained through questionnaire and interview. There
were three questions addressed to see how they
perceived the final test of structure. The first question
was designed to ask to all respondents having ever
joined the Structure I subject about their preference
of the Structure subject. The answers varied each
other. But the majority of them said that they liked the
Structure subject. 10 respondents answering ‘like’ to
the subject were then interviewed for revealing the
reasons. Seven of them said that the Structure subject
was interesting and easy to be studied, understood,
and practiced. The rests said that because it is the
most challenging subject. They then added the
statement that all students must pass this challenging
subject to join the next same subject in different
levels.
The second question referred to the respondents’
perception on the final test of structure. The majority
of the respondents said that the final test of structure
was hardly easy to be passed. Their answers were
then clarified through interview. The clarification was
about their perception of the reason behind stating
‘difficult’ to the final test of structure administration.
Having analysed their answers to interview session,
their answers can be figured out that there are two
factors affecting their perception: 1) There was a
discrepancy between the item forms of exercise and
item forms of final test; and 2) There was anxiety of
not being able to pass the final test.
The third item of questionnaire asking whether or
not the final test of structure is important. Most of
them chose ‘yes’ to express that the final test is
important to do. 10 of 83 respondents, covering five
respondents chose ‘yes/important’ and five chose
‘no/not important,’ were then interviewed. There are
two categories of perception, positive and negative as
it can be seen in the following tables.
Table 1: Respondents’ Positive Perception on Final Test of
Structure.
Category
Number of
Respondents
Department Standard
2
Students’ Proficiency
2
Study Seriousness
1
Table 1 shows the data from respondents’
interviews, which stated positive perceptions of the
final test of structure administration. Two
respondents perceived the final test of structure as
important for English Education Department
standard. This makes people to consider that the
students graduating from the Department have a good
quality in teaching English. Two respondents stated
that the final test of structure served to examine the
students’ grammar proficiency. Another positive
point in their perception is that the final test of
structure compels the students to study more seriously
to improve their English skill. A more interesting
finding is presented in Table 2.
The Washback of the Final Test on Students’ Learning Behavior
257
Table 2: Respondents’ Negative Perception on Final Test
of Structure.
Category
Number of
Respondents
Futility
3
Awkward Policy
2
It is shown in Table 2 that there are three
respondents who raised objections about the futility
of the final test of structure that the length of the
students’ studying for a semester is only determined
in 90 minutes of the final test of structure
administration. Two respondents stated their
objections that the policy of Department in deciding
the prerequisites of structure subject II and III is
awkward. It is not wise to force the students to pass
the Structure I before joining Structure II.
3.2 Learning Behaviours Affected by
the Final Test of Structure
The finding on the respondents’ learning behaviours
was collected from observation, questionnaire, and
interview. The observation was conducted a month
prior to testing the students. Meanwhile, the
questionnaire and interview were administered two
weeks after testing the students. Data obtained from
observation, questionnaire, and interview verified the
presence of the washback of the final test of structure
on students’ learning behaviours. Let us consider the
following table.
Table 4: Washback of the Final Test of Structure in
Campus Area and Outside Campus Area
No
Inside Campus
Outside Campus
1
Setting up extra time
in the classroom
Setting up extra
time at home
2
Altering textbooks
with worksheets
Being involved in
informal education
3
Taking online drills
Inviting English
teachers to teach at
home
4
Doing consultation
Building a group
in WhatsApp
5
Building
Collaborative Work
Joining English
coaching clinic
6
Preparing small notes
for cheating
Doing religious
activities
7
-
Getting stressed
Table 4 shows that having observed and
interviewed the respondents, the learning behaviours
affected by the UAS was divided in two areas: inside
campus area and outside campus area.
3.2.1 Learning Behaviours Inside Campus
Area
In campus area, the respondents did some activities as
follows:
3.2.1.1 Setting Up Extra Time
The first activity done by the respondent prior to
joining the UAS was setting up the extra time, two
weeks’ approach to UAS, in their learning by making
a schedule for discussing one or two topics of
structure. The time schedule was twice a week
(Tuesday and Friday) every evening. Sometimes,
they asked the senior students to present a topic
relating to the topic they are going to discuss. From
the sample of seven session observations, it was
found that the main activity in the classroom
discussion they scheduled was practicing to
establishing sentences based on the topic being
discussed. This coincides with the statement by
Pizaro (2009) that allocating time to the skills needed
in the test is the washback of the test.
3.2.1.2 Altering the Textbooks with Worksheets
The second activity was altering the learning
materials of which they usually use class textbooks
with worksheet identical to exercises given in the
textbooks. Even, it was found that some of them
replace the textbooks with TOEFL exercises. It is
generally assumed that a test may influence what and
how a learner learns (Cheng, 2005).
3.2.1.3 Taking Online Drills
The third activity was taking structure drill section
through websites. When observing the students
inside campus area, such as in the faculty building,
canteen, and corridor, they enjoyed free Wi-Fi served
by the university. They were interviewed to find out
what sites they were opening. Most of them said that
they were trying out the grammatical skill through
grammar online services. Drilling is a common
phenomenon of washback effect of a test. The
strategy is not only employed by students but it is
used by teachers as well. They may apply the strategy
for weaker students (Ferman, 2004).
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
258
3.2.1.4 Doing Consultation
The fourth activity was doing consultation with the
senior students and lecturers. Taylor (1990) stated
that consultation is informal discussion with teachers
and friends as an important preparation. Some
respondents realized that consulting the topics with
the senior students was of great attempts to improve
their grammatical proficiency. In addition, they also
said that the senior students sometimes recommended
that they do more exercises in the final test of
structure format to increase the grammatical
proficiency.
3.2.1.5 Building Collaborative work
The fifth activity was learning collaboratively with
some classmates. Those who did not join the
classroom discussion scheduled twice a week as
mentioned in point 1 learnt in pairs or in group to
discuss the topics of structure. This shows that the
students will do whatever behaviors they feel most
expedient to help them to prepare the test (Alderson
and Wall, 1993).
3.2.1.6 Preparing Small Notes
The last activity done inside campus area was
preparing small notes in the small size paper for
cheating at the time of the final test of structure.
These notes were prepared by some students who
were lazy to learn and practice. Rather than preparing
small notes, Ferman (2004) identified the use of a
clue card for preparation for the test. However, the
strategy is basically the same; they use notes in order
for memorization to facilitate.
3.2.2 Learning Behaviours Outside Campus
Area
Those activities done inside campus area were similar
to those of done outside campus area as follows:
3.2.2.1 Setting up Extra Time
The first activity done outside campus area was
almost the same as that of being done inside campus
area in terms of setting up extra time in their learning.
The difference was time set was arranged in their own
boarding house by making a tight learning schedule
started from morning to evening. In one session of
interview, they said that they focused on learning the
structure subject by balancing theories and exercises.
It is particular trues that a test may lead students to set
up extra time for learning. The amount of time spent
weekly for preparation of the test and extra time,
which is reflected in the time spent weekly for
learning and accelerated pace of learning during
period of time immediately preceding the test
(Ferman, 2004).
3.2.2.2 Being Involved in Informal Education
The second activity was being involved in informal
education such as English courses. Observation data
showed that the respondents were registered in some
English courses near to campus area. They were then
interviewed to clarify the reasons they took the
English courses. They said that the demand to be able
to pass the structure subject has made us think hard
and we take the course to fulfil such demand.
3.2.2.3 Inviting English Teachers
The third activity was inviting the English teacher to
teach Grammar. Some students realized that they
paid some English teachers to teach English grammar
at their own home or boarding house. This was done
due to the fact that they want to pass the final test of
structure. Inviting English teachers as tutor to
compensate students’ lack of knowledge in testing
materials is considered a common phenomenon.
Ferman (2004), for example, identifies the
employment of tutor as a way to help students prepare
for the test.
3.2.2.4 Building a Group
The fourth activity was building a group named
Structure Group in WhatsApp. In one session of
interview with 10 respondents, they all show the same
sound that they created a group discussing the
structure. This is a problem-based learning group.
Everyone could post a problem and discussed by all
members of the group to find the solution.
3.2.2.5 Joining Coaching Clinic
The fifth activity was being active participants in
English coaching clinic established by the student
association of English Education department
(SAEED). Another sample of seven observation
sessions found that the second semester students
mostly participated in the SAEED activities. One of
which was to help the juniors increase their English
language skills.
3.2.2.6 Doing Religious Activities
The sixth activity was doing religious activities such
as praying and fasting (Saehu, 2012). This is an
interesting finding gained from an interview session
showing that many respondents prayed for their
The Washback of the Final Test on Students’ Learning Behavior
259
success in dealing with the final test of structure. The
activity seems to be typical of students of Religion
institution, in which all respondent learns in Islamic
university.
3.2.2.7 Getting Stressed
The last thing happened outside campus area was
getting stressed of not being able to pass the final test
of structure. The questionnaire and interview data
showed that the respondents complained that the final
test of structure had made them stressful. However,
some of them did not consider it as a nuisance, even
motivates them to learn seriously and diligently. The
phenomenon is parallel to the research findings from
Sukyadi and Mardiani (2011) that a test may
influence, one of which, is students’ feeling. In this
case, feeling stressful and worried about the test is
common phenomenon. Further, Spratt (2005) states
that exams impact on feelings and attitudes seems
clear but how these in turn impact on teaching and
learning is much less clear.”
4 CONCLUSIONS
The students involved in this study show their
perceptions on the final test of structure differently.
Some of them said that the UAS is difficult, while the
others it is not. Although it is explicitly stated
difficult, most of them perceived it important for their
English proficiency improvement and English
Education Department quality. However, those cons
said that the UAS is not important, as it is futile and
irrational about the length of the students’ studying a
structure subject for a semester is only determined to
pass or not in one and half hours of the final test of
structure administration. The learning behaviours
affected by the washback of the UAS are time
arrangement, textbooks replacement, online drilling,
consultation with lecturers, coaching clinic with
senior students, informal education involvement,
notes preparation for cheating, religious activities,
and stressful condition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing an academic paper for publication is always
challenging but is sometimes frustrating for a
beginning writer. It takes time to think and requires
some efforts to make. Above all, collaboration
among different parties is a necessity. The paper, like
our previous papers, will never be completed without
contribution from other parties, either technically or
academically. Therefore, in this space, we would like
to express our gratitude to the followings: (1) Dr.
Yudi Darmalaksana, Head of Research Center, who
has motivated and facilitated us to proceed the
research activities to research publication; (2) Dr.
Tedy Priatna, Dean of Faculty of Education, who has
encouraged us to publish the research papers; and (3)
Dr. Setia Ginanjar, Dean of Faculty of Adab and
Humanities, who has contributed to facilitation of the
publication. Our thanks also go to the Head of English
Education Department, the Faculty of Tarbiyah and
teacher Training and Head of English Literature, the
Faculty of Adab and Humanities, who have allowed
us to collect the data and interview the students. Last
but not least, we were very thankful to the rector of
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati who has helped us grow
into more professional researchers.
REFERENCES
Alderson, C. J., Wall, D., 1993. Does washback exist?.
Applied Linguistics. 14(2), 115-129.
Anastas, J. W., 2005. Observation. In R.M. Grinnell Jr., &
Y.A. Unrau (Eds.), Social work research and
evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches,
Oxford University Press. New York,
7th
edition. pp.
2130230.
Bachman, L. F., 2004. Statistical analysis for language
assessment, Cambridge University Press. United
Kingdom.
Brown, H. D., 2004. Language Assessment Principles and
Classroom Practices, Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Cheng, L., 2005. Changing language teaching through
language testing, Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2007. Research
Methods in Education, Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group. London and New York,
6th
edition.
Ferman, I., 2004. The Washback of an EFL national Oral
Matriculation. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis
(Eds), Washback in Language Testing: Research
Context and Methods (pp. 3-17), Lawrence Elbaum
Associates. New Jersey.
Green, A., 2007. Washback to Learning Outcomes: A
Comparative Study of IELTS Preparation and
University Pre-sessional Language Courses,
Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation. University of
Surrey, Roehampton. UK.
Hui-Fen, M., 2009. An Entrance Test to Japanese
Universities: Social and Historical Contexts. Language
Testing. 11(3). 141-175.
Manjares, A., Alvare, M., 2005. Washback of an Oral
Assessment System in the EFL Classroom. Language
Testing. 12(2). 141-175.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
260
McNamara, T., 2000. Language testing, Oxford University
Press. Oxford.
Pizzaro, M. A., 2009. Does the English teaching in the
Spanish university entrance examination influence the
teaching of English?. English Studies. 90(5), 582-589.
Qi, L., 2005. Has a High-Stakes Test Produced the Intended
Changes? In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds),
Washback in Language Testing: Research Context and
Methods (pp. 171-190), Lawrence Elbaum Associates.
New Jersey.
Saehu, A., 2012. Testing and Its Potential Washback. In
B.Y. Cahyono & R.N. Indah (Eds.) Second Language
Research and Pedagogy (pp.119-132), State University
of Malang Press. Malang.
Spratt, M., 2005. Washback and the Classroom: The
Implications for teaching and learning studies of
washback from exam. Language Teaching Research.
9(1), 5-29.
Sukyadi and Mardiani, 2011. The Washback Effect of the
English National Examination. In KATA. volume 13,
number 1, june 2011: 96-111.
Taylor, G., 1990. The Students’ Writing Guide, The
University of Cambridge. Australia.
Tsagari, D., 2009. Revisiting the Concept of Test
Washback: Investigating FCE in Greek Language
Schools. Cambridge ESOL. issue: 35.
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati, 2015. Evaluasi Diri Program
Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakutas Tarbiyah dan
Keguruan (an unpublished report). Bandung.
The Washback of the Final Test on Students’ Learning Behavior
261