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

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

Futility

Awkward Policy

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

Inside Campus

Outside Campus

Setting up extra time

in the classroom

Setting up extra

time at home

Altering textbooks

with worksheets

Being involved in

informal education

Taking online drills

Inviting English

teachers to teach at

home

Doing consultation

Building a group

in WhatsApp

Building

Collaborative Work

Joining English

coaching clinic

Preparing small notes

for cheating

Doing religious

activities

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