Table 2 Research on IELTS washback
Researcher(s) (Year of publication) | Geographical context | Research method(s) | Participants | Major findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Coleman et al. (2003) | Australia; UK; The Chinese mainland | Questionnaire; interview | Test takers; university staff | - IELTS was perceived to have high validity; |
- Students were satisfied with IELTS entry scores and their English abilities | ||||
- University Teachers wished for an increased IELTS entry score and were unsatisfied with students’ English abilities | ||||
Hayes and Read (2004) | New Zealand | Questionnaire; classroom observation; interview; testing | Teachers; students | - Teaching-to-the test was found in the focal IELTS preparation course; |
- Great differences between IELTS preparations courses and EAP courses; | ||||
- No significant improvement of students’ IELTS scores was found after they took the focal preparation course | ||||
Hawkey (2006) | Not specified | Questionnaire; classroom observation; interview; analysis of textbooks and materials | Teachers; test takers; IELTS administrators; admission officers | Participants generally perceived that: |
- IELTS tests all four communicative macro-skills; | ||||
- IELTS is a fair, authentic and high-stake test; | ||||
- Reading and writing modules are more difficult | ||||
Green (2006) | UK | Classroom observation; interview | Teachers | - Common practices were found in both IELTS and EAP classes; |
- Great differences exist between IELTS and EAP classes | ||||
- Teacher variables induced practices not predicted from the test design |