Purpose of the study: The aim of this study is to identify if the teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) yield to testing and results, while teaching. The impact of teaching on testing is called washback. Tests have positive and negative results on the students. The attitude of teachers towards washback impacts a lot on students as they play a pivotal role to reduce the impact of negative influence on teaching and learning.

Methodology: A background information questionnaire is generated for 57 EFL teachers in Saudi Arabia. Besides, another questionnaire with sixteen statements is provided and the participants are asked to respond on the basis of 5-point Likert scale. The data is analyzed with the support of pi and bar charts, SPSS, students’ t-test, and ANOVA.

Main Findings: This study identifies different perspectives of teachers towards the impact of testing on teaching. The experienced faculties teach students and assess them with no washback. On the other hand, the moderately experienced and less experienced teachers get affected by washback. This study identifies that experienced teachers are not influenced by testing.

Applications of this study: If the universities create a platform for all EFL teachers, they can learn from one another. This study identifies that the third group, the experienced, are not influenced by testing. If their experience supports the first and the second groups, it will yield a larger benefit not only to students but also to the teaching fraternity.

Novelty/Originality of this study: The experienced teachers focus more on teaching but not on testing, which is a positive sign. The moderately experienced teachers focus on both the things. The less experienced teachers are neutral to all statements. Based on the current study, the administrators can create a platform for all EFL teachers so that they can get benefitted from one another.


  1. Alderson, J. C. and Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A Study of Washback. Language Testing 13(3): 280-97.
  2. Alderson, J.C., and Wall, D. (1993). Does Washback Exist? Applied Linguistics 14(2): 115-129.
  3. Anderson, J. O., Muir, W., Bateson, D. J., Blackmore, D., & Rogers, W. T. (1990). The impact of provincial examinations on education in British Columbia: General report. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Education.
  4. Andrews, S. (2004). Washback and curriculum innovation. In L. Cheng. Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis, (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp.37-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  6. Bailey, K.M. (1996). Working for washback: a review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing 13(3): 257-79.
  7. Bailey, K.M. (2005). Looking back down the road: A recent history of language classroom research. Review of Applied Linguistics in China, 1, pp. 6-47.
  8. Biggs, J. B. (1995). Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. Curriculum Forum, 4(2), 1–22.
  9. Buck, G. (1988). Testing listening comprehension in Japanese university entrance examinations. JALT Journal 10, 15-42.
  10. Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: a washback study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Eckstein, M.A. and Noah, H.J. (1993). Examinations: Comparative and International studies (Eds.).
  12. Frederickson and Colling (1989), A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher 18 (9), 27-32.
  13. Gates, S. (1995). Exploiting washback from standardized tests. In J. D. Brown & S. O. Yamashita (Eds.), Language testing in Japan (pp. 101-106). Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching.
  14. Hamdan, A. (2013). An exploration into" private" higher education in Saudi Arabia: Improving quality and accessibility? The ACPET Journal for Private Higher Education.2(2).
  15. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Marrow, K. (1986). The evaluation of tests of communicative performance. In Portal, M., editor, Innovations in language testing. Windsor: NFER/Nelson, 1-13.
  17. McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000
  18. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R., (ed.), Educational measurement, New York: ACE/Macmillan, 447-74.
  19. Messick.S (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. LanguageTesting13, 241.
  20. Pan, Y. (2009). A review of washback and its pedagogical implications. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages, 25: 257-263
  21. Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers for change. In Chamberlain, D. and Baumgardner, R., editors, ESP in the Classroom: Practice and Evaluation, ELT Documents 128. London: Modern English Publications, 98-107.
  22. Shohamy, E. (1992). Beyond proficiency testing: a diagnostic feedback testing modal for assessing foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal 76, 513-521
  23. Shohamy, E. (1993). The power of tests: the impact of language tests on teaching and learning. NFLC Occasional Paper. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Centre.
  24. Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S. and Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: washback effect over time. Language Testing 13(3): 298_317.
  25. Spolsky, B. (1994). The examination-classroom backwash cycle: Some historical cases. In D. Nunan, R. Berry, R., & V. Berry (Eds.), Bringing about change in language education: Proceedings of the International Language in Education Conference 1994 (pp. 55-66). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
  26. Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: the implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research (9): 5-29
  27. Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham& D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (pp.291–302). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.