Exploring standardized tests washback from the decolonial option: implications for rural teachers and students

Abstract

The lack of research from rural contexts evidences that coloniality is maintained not only in socioeconomics but also in education. Hence, this qualitative research synthesis explores the washback of English language standardized tests at the secondary level. To do this, I draw theoretically on the decolonial option and a thorough literature review of washback at the international and national levels. Then, I approach interpretive content analysis to unveil implications for rural teachers and students. Findings suggest negative washback reflected on decontextualized testing practices that fail to promote an integral education. Therefore, I propose the analysis of teachers and students’ attitudes, the embracement of local and social testing practices, and the promotion of horizontal approaches to direct washback from an introspective standpoint. Likewise, I invite teachers toassess powerful socioeconomicinstitutions influencing test dynamics, unveihidden discourses in external policy and curriculum, recognize dehumanized tests’ ideologies and identify capitalist strategies transferred to the educational system. Given the increasing efforts to impose politicized and homogenized standardized tests, this paper can be helpful not only for rural teachers and students but also scholars in general.

Keywords:

• Decoloniality
• English language teaching
• testing
• standardized tests
• washback

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Oliver Nyambi, English Department, University of the Free State, South Africa

SUBJECTS:

• Middle School Education; Bilingualism/ESL; Secondary Education; Teachers & Teacher Education; Education Policy & Politics; Education Policy; Language & Linguistics; Language Teaching & Learning

Introduction

Tests have a longitudinal impact on teaching and learning that can lead to positive or negative language assessment practices (Giraldo, 2022). This phenomenon, known as washback, has been accepted broadly (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019; Hughes, 2003); however, the limited number of studies focused on washback (see Table 1) suggests that teachers’ ways of directing washback in the current politicized testing panorama (Remolina-Caviedes, 2019) are still underexplored. This gap in the literature is more noticeable in rural contexts, considering the absence of studies interconnecting washback and rural education despite 43% of the world population living in rural areas (World Bank, 2023).

Being an English language teacher at a rural public school and having experienced the tension between teaching for life and teaching for testing (Haus & Schmicheck, 2022; Jordão, 2019), I continued looking for better testing practices that could lead to positive washback in similar contexts; that is, rural areas in which standardized tests are a lesser priority for students due to socioeconomic and political issues. Hence, I explored several specialized ELT journals individually and found Ali and Hamid’s (2022) study, which shows how two rural teachers in Bangladesh not only complied with national testing requirements to secure their jobs but also implemented hybrid teaching and testing practices responding to their students’ actual needs. Thus, the study shows the importance of teachers having ‘large-scale and classroom-based assessment knowledge, skills, and practices, including design, implementation, and evaluation of assessment instruments’ (Giraldo, 2018, p. 27), especially when coming between national and local interests.

In Colombia, teachers must prepare students for Prueba Saber 11¹ –whose literal translation is Knowledge Test –since teachers’ jobs and students’ admission to higher education are highly dependent on standardized tests’ results (Stevenson, 2017). This standardized test draws on reading and use of English to ‘evaluate the performance obtained by students according to the competencies defined by the National Ministry of Education’ (MEN, 2022, p. 1). It contains five parts (see Appendix A) and classifies students into one of four CEFR proficiency levels (Pre-A1², A1, A2, B1). Even though standardized tests might offer diagnostic feedback, they usually come with construct validity and reliability issues (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). For instance, Prueba Saber 11 fails to assess the listening, writing and speaking skills, which implies a partial idea of students’ language proficiency level (Lopez et al., 2011). Besides, it is designed from a top-down perspective that homogenizes the student population and prioritizes external sociopolitical interests (Remolina-Caviedes, 2019). Therefore, the previous issues call for considering an alternative interpretive approach, such as the decolonial option, to examine washback critically and explore testing practices leading to positive washback.

The decolonial option is ‘a way, option, standpoint, analytic project, practice, and praxis’ (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 5) that individuals engage in to reimagine a balanced world, despite the risk of being undermined and neglected in the ‘academia’ (Mignolo, 2011). This option values knowledges³, subjectivities, world senses and life visions since doing research otherwise requires challenging canonical practices that call for dislocation, disengagement and disembodiment (Méndez-Rivera, 2020; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). Hence, I embrace the subjectivities from my position as a rural English language teacher working at a public secondary school to explore the following research question and objectives: What are the implications of standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education drawing from the decolonial option?

General objective

• To explore standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education drawing from the decolonial option.

Specific objectives

• To examine trends in the international and national literature regarding standardized tests’ washback in rural areas.

• To devise potential ways in which rural teachers and students in secondary education could engage in testing practices leading to positive washback.

To do this, I draw theoretically on decoloniality and washback, bringing attention to connections for teaching, language learning, and classroom assessment. In terms of methodology, I approach a type of secondary research called qualitative research synthesis (QRS) and empirical and theoretical content analysis to explore related studies at the international and national levels. Subsequently, I discuss some implications for rural teachers and students based on the analysis and the decolonial option. Then, I propose three actions to engage in testing practices leading to positive washback: analyze teacher and student attitude, embrace local and social approaches and promote horizontal and democratic testing practices. Likewise, I invite readers to assess socioeconomic powerful institutions, unveil hidden discourses in external policy and curriculum, recognize dehumanized testing ideologies and identify capitalist strategies transferred to the educational system.

Hence, this paper adds to the scarce literature on English language testing at the secondary level in rural areas and stands out for being one of the first that focuses on washback in this area. To the best of my knowledge, there are no studies or reflections on standardized tests washback in rural secondary education in Colombia. In this sense, I urge readers to embrace border thinking, one of the epistemic perspectives from the decolonial option that promotes dignifying geo- and body-politically ideas from the historically disqualified and disavowed to construct a balanced and communal society. In this essay, I not only dare to re-imagine traditional testing practices but also urge teachers and students to do the same.

Theoretical framework

This section explains the two primary constructs, decoloniality and washback, guiding the exploration of standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education drawing from the decolonial option. Given this, I approached a transformative interpretive framework, which promotes analyzing power relationships and their connections with social inequity (Mertens, 1999, as cited in Jackson et al., 2018). In this essay, I will analyze washback from a critical perspective the intersections between standardized tests and rural realities.

On decoloniality

Mignolo and Walsh (2018), acknowledging Aníbal Quijano’s seminal work, argue that coloniality and decoloniality have coexisted since the sixteenth century. The authors suggest that if the colonial project constitutes modernity, including its capitalist, disengaged and dehumanized worldview, decoloniality dignifies downtrodden knowledges, especially of ‘those who are pounced on the most…the females, the homosexuals of all races, the dark-skinned, the outcast, the persecuted, the marginalized, the foreign’ (Andalzúa, 2021, p. 60). In the same line, Mignolo (2011) proposes the idea of epistemic legitimacy, which promotes dignifying ideas from those usually silenced or ignored by the system.

Being an indigenous person born and bred in State abandoned rural contexts and now working as a rural EFL teacher have undoubtedly shaped my epistemes and paradigms and led me to the decolonial option. Thus, I embrace these characteristics as my locus of enunciation, that is, ‘the geo-political and body-political location of the subject that speaks’ (Grosfoguel, 2011, p. 6), to analyze standardized tests from a decolonial perspective informed not only by the literature but also personal theories, understood as ‘the sorts of professional knowledge teachers construct throughout their experiences… [and] their social sensitivity’ (Cruz-Arcila, 2018, p. 67). Likewise, drawing on Mignolo’s (2011) ideas of epistemic legitimacy, I shall challenge and contest epistemes and paradigms of standardized tests.

An excellent example in the field is Haus and Schmicheck (2022), two EFL Brazilian teachers who, preoccupied with teaching for testing policies at their workplaces, decided to ‘explore an evaluation otherwise and promote a more critical and democratic linguistic education’ (p. 766) with EFL students at a federal university. They conclude that positivist instruments fail to assess language as a complex social system, and recognize the learner’s individuality and the fluctuant nature of knowledge construction. Thus, the authors make a case for opening assessment to emotions, social practices and decolonization, which challenges the current geo and bodily disengaged test used as instruments of power and measurement (Guerrero, 2010; Remolina-Caviedes, 2019). Similar to Haus and Schmicheck (2022), this critical essay analyzes standardized tests’ washback from the decolonial option. However, to what does washback refer? In what follows, I explain in-depth this construct and its intersections with education.

What is washback?

Bachman and Palmer (2010) contend that washback impacts individuals, educational systems, and society because tests are value-loaded and thought for specific purposes. In this line, Hughes (2003) warns about the potential negative washback coming from divergent test methods and teaching objectives. For instance, teachers who focus on preparing students for tests rather than on teaching language skills get caught up in test-driven lessons that hinder contextual assessment practices (Green, 2013). Therefore, Shohamy (2001, 2007) argues that tests have become tools of power, given their capacity to make those in power and those subjugated to it accommodate test objectives.

6In the same line, several authors have discussed two aspects of washback, namely, intensity and direction, considering their influence on resulting washback. On the one hand, Cheng (2005, as cited in Green, 2013) states that washback intensity refers to the potential that tests have to impact learning positively, which depends on the test-taker worldviews. In this regard, Hughes (2003) states that teachers can enhance washback intensity when test-takers are determined to succeed, feel well-prepared, and have sufficient resources. On the other hand, the washback direction can be beneficial or damaging, depending on test design, teaching practices, and educational systems (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Hughes, 2003; Messick, 1996). Therefore, washback intensity and washback direction have direct implications for language teaching and assessment, and the education system in general.

Washback and education

Green (2013) argues that tests affect content curricula because they must reduce the number of constructs to suit determined purposes best. This reduction results in construct under-representation, which means that teachers focus on tasks that comply with test constructs rather than working on existing curricula. In this regard, Herbert (1889) states that what is tested is what is taught, suggesting that test-related tasks become predominant in the classroom. Hence, construct under-representation affects educational systems because teachers accommodate teaching and testing to what external authorities have prioritized. In turn, construct under-representation has implications for learning, too, given that learners miss opportunities to enhance their overall language skills in favor of test achievement. Then, classroom assessment, taking every teaching opportunity to appraise or estimate a student’s ability at something (Mousavi, 2009), focuses on test-related constructs mainly, diminishing opportunities to attend to other students’ needs and the curriculum at large.

To illustrate, Guía 22, the official government guideline framing English teaching and, inherently, testing, offers countless objectives that address linguistic, pragmatic and sociolinguistic competencies. However, Prueba Saber 11 mainly addresses linguistic-related items (see Appendix A), putting this competence at the center of curricula and testing. In fact, Guerrero’s (2010) analysis of the same document shows that the official discourse positions teachers as merely technicians meant to put external and decontextualized plans into action. Hence, standardized tests impact teaching, learning and testing and promote coloniality by belittling others’ ideas (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). In this case, Guía 22 disregards students and teachers’ knowledges and capacities (Guerrero, 2010).

Similarly, Green (2013) posits that tests’ restricted formats and limited types of tasks lessen authenticity, understood as the possibility of a task taking place in factual circumstances (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). In turn, the mismatch between test tasks and real-life experiences entails that teachers favor low-authentic test tasks over those related to contextual needs. Haus and Schmicheck (2022) make a similar observation and denounce the lack of opportunities for students to explore their identities. Hence, the authors’ insights suggest that the lack of tests’ authenticity might result in negative washback. For instance, Prueba Saber’s items asking students to identify beach signs when the rural school population barely leaves their municipality, shows the disconnection between test and real-life tasks.

In short, focusing on test-related constructs and tasks diminishes opportunities to enhance language skills holistically, and the limited types of tasks in tests result in mastering tasks unlikely to occur outside the classroom. Nevertheless, students’ and teachers’ understanding of standardized tests could help diminish the negative intensity and direction. This awareness starts by engaging in local reflections to write back at those in power. In what follows, I explain how the present reflection was done.

Method

The study is grounded in a qualitative approach as it acknowledges the influence of the researcher’s worldviews and helps to explore social and educational issues profoundly (Holliday, 2015). In this case, drawing from the decolonial option, I explore the implications of standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education. Given that the decolonial option calls to embrace my geo and body-political position as a rural EFL teacher, I approach a type of secondary research called qualitative research synthesis (QRS) to ensure the rigour and reliability of the findings.

Guapacha-Chamorro and Chaves-Varón (2023) argue that QRS ‘helps to examine qualitative findings of classroom-based studies and offers a comprehensive view of the factors associated with instructional effectiveness, teachers’ and learners’ perceptions, beliefs, and experiences in various contexts on a common topic’ (p. 248). In this line, Chong and Plonsky’s, (2021) QRS methodological framework (see Figure 1) guided the exploration of standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education.

Figure 1. QRS methodological framework.

Adapted from: Chong and Plonsky (2021).

Step 1. Design research question

The research question that guided the literature review was: What are the implications of standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education drawing from the decolonial option? Although the decolonial option was inherently part of the entire process, I systematically focused on identifying trends in the international and national literature.

Step 2. Identify keywords

I considered several keywords for the literature review: ELT, standardized test, washback, secondary education, and rural education, given the lack of research in the field.

Step 3. Determine inclusion criteria

Similar to Guapacha-Chamorro and Chaves-Varón (2023), I filtered the research reports while conducting the literature search. In this case, I considered that the articles reported primary research (students’ or teachers’ voices were at the chore of the report); focused on government standardized tests developed at the secondary education level;⁴ were published between 2013 and 2023,⁵ were conducted in EFL/ESL classrooms; were developed in rural areas; and were available to the public in general.

Step 4. Conduct literature search

Considering the previous inclusion criteria, I searched for empirical studies in three digital databases: ERIC, JSTOR, Science Direct, Google Scholar, 13 journal websites and Google Scholar. These avenues facilitate access to the information since they offer a considerable amount of literature free of charge. In regards to the journal websites, the majority were Publindex⁶ categorized Colombian journals since they were likely to report high-quality research on the topic under exploration. Finally, I typed each of the keywords individually (washback) and collectively (washback in secondary education) to arrive at a comprehensive sample. Table 1 shows the number of studies found in the avenues consulted.

Table 1. List of avenues consulted.

Avenues	Results
Digital Databases
ERIC (Education Resources Information Center).	1
JSTOR	1
Science Direct	0
Journal Websites
Colombian Applied Linguistics	0
Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica	0
Educación y Humanismo	0
ELT Journal	1
Folios	1
GIST – Education and Learning Research	0
HOW Journal	1
Ìkala, Revista de Lenguage y Cultura.	1
Language Assessment Quaterly	0
Language Testing	0
Praxis & Saber	0
Profile: Issues in Teachers Professional Development	0
Revista Colombiana de Educación	0
World Wide Web
Google Scholar	3

The initial literature search yielded 22 studies which were reduced to nine later due to mismatches with the focus of this essay. For instance, Chongni (2020), Ibrahim and Bello (2020) and Merchant et al. (2020) conducted washback studies at the secondary level in Asia, Africa and America, respectively; however, their research reported on urban populations whose socioeconomic background and lifestyle are distant from the rural realities. Therefore, the number of studies was reduced to nine.

Step 5. Extract qualitative data

I recurred to an Excel matrix to explore and organize the articles’ data. This instrument included a coding scheme with the following items: research question, theoretical framework, research design, participants, context, data collection instruments, data analysis, key findings, and directions for further research. Likewise, the matrix information was gathered as raw data, which refers to verbatim transcripts (Chong & Plonsky, 2021) and, in this case, excerpts from the studies. This decision helped to keep insights as thought by the authors before the analysis from the decolonial option. Finally, I uploaded the matrix to the data management software ATLAS.ti. to synthesize the data.

Step 6. Report synthesised qualitative data

Krippendorff (2018) refers to content analysis as a ‘research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use’ (p. 24). Likewise, Stemler (2015) highlights the flexibility of content analysis since researchers can conduct empirical or theoretical analyses. In this case, I scanned the matrix several times to identify the literature trends presented in the next section. Subsequently, I approached theoretical content analysis to analyze standardized tests washback at the secondary level in rural areas. This implies a critical reflection aligned with interpretive content analysis. In this sense, I analyzed ‘both manifest and latent or contextual content’ (Drisko & Maschi, 2016, p. 5) and organized the reflection in the Discussion section.

Findings

The present section introduces trends in the international and national literature regarding the washback of standardized tests at the secondary level in rural areas. In this sense, I found that standardized tests affect teaching practices, content curriculum, materials choice, and classroom assessment at the international and national levels. Subsequently, I explain the findings in detail.

Washback of standardized tests at the international level

The literature at the international level shows that the standardized tests’ washback effect is primarily negative in that the English language classroom turns into the means to prepare students for test achievement rather than to develop overall language or life skills, as shown in the two following studies. Dawadi (2021) explores the washback of the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) English tests in Nepal, Asia. Participants were six tenth-grade students and their parents (6), who completed oral diaries and interviews. The author found a mismatch between testing constructs and practices despite teachers and students aiming to succeed in the standardized test. Likewise, the study suggests that socioeconomic factors such as the lack of income to strengthen learning strategies outside the classroom and pressure from parents and teachers influence washback. Consequently, students recur to their classmates and community members for guidance and motivation. Thus, Dawadi (2021) argues for promoting English skills overall and analyzing social, cultural and political elements.

Similarly, Rahman et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study in Bangladesh to explore the washback of the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) English section. The authors collected data through interviews, focused group discussions, and observations from English teachers and students of 12 secondary schools. They found a mismatch between the schools’ curricula and the test format. Like Dawadi (2021), this study shows teachers’ lack of training to integrate the curriculum objectives and assessment systems, students’ negative attitudes towards the test, and schools and parents’ pressure as influential washback factors. Therefore, the authors found that teaching and learning become test-oriented. For this reason, they recommend that the SSC content, format, and test items be improved and that the multiple stakeholders’ voices be considered in the test if washback is to be positive.

Another research report from Asia not only confirms test-oriented teaching practices but also reveals the desire for social mobility as one of the predominant reasons behind decontextualized English language teaching practices. In this line, Tayeb et al. (2014) conducted a study in Yemen to investigate the washback of the General Secondary English Examination (GSEE) on twelfth-grade students. The authors collected data through interviews and a questionnaire administered to 30 English teachers nationwide. Findings showed that the test influences teaching and learning because of its high stakes, given its predominant role in higher education access. Likewise, the authors explain that the academic system has become test-driven and affects teachers’ beliefs and practices. That is, teachers spend more time coaching students for the GSEE than working on students’ contextual needs. Thus, the authors argue that language policymakers have a defining role in liberating teachers and students from the pressure of the GSEE so that they work on aspects that could be relevant outside test achievement.

Finally, there is evidence that societies’ built-in coloniality leads us to validate these types of structuralist tests (Jordão, 2019; Shohamy, 2007). To exemplify, Gashaye (2020) analyzed the English National Exam washback on the ninth and tenth-grade students and language teachers from 33 different schools in Ethiopia, Africa. The author collected data through classroom observations, document analysis, questionnaire surveys, and interviews. He found that the national test influenced teaching and learning negatively by deviating lesson content, teaching practices, materials choice, and classroom assessment from the schools’ syllabi. Likewise, the author encountered that internal and external variables such as students’ attitudes and stakeholders’ pressure also contributed to the negative washback. Hence, this study confirms that standardizedtests’ success as elements of power is closely related to internalized coloniality. In what follows, the Colombian literature suggests similar issues.

Washback of standardized tests in Colombia

Hernández-Ocampo’s (2022) review of language assessment in five well-established Colombian journals shows that testing is rather an underexplored area. The author found only four articles from 2009 to 2020 focused on testing in tertiary education and urban contexts. Similarly, I found only four studies that address washback at the secondary level directly and indirectly, yet none were conducted in rural areas. In this line, López et al. (2011) account for positive washback despite mentioning factors that suggest otherwise. The authors report on the validity of Prueba Saber and argue that the test ‘does not have a big negative impact on students, teachers and the ELT process… and grammar and vocabulary are evaluated in a contextualized way’ (p. 88). Yet, they highlight the lack of relevant constructs and opportunities to assess complex cognition processes and render the test unable to assess students’ abilities. Likewise, the following two studies suggest positive washback as seen from a perspective in which English language learning is the ultimate goal.

Barletta (2005) and Barletta and May (2006) provide some of the initial (and only) accounts on standardized test washback closest to my locus of enunciation, that is, EFL teaching at the secondary level in rural areas. The authors conducted studies with teachers and students from public high schools ‘not predominantly privileged nor particularly poor or disadvantaged’ (Barletta & May, 2006, p. 240). Although their analysis indicates positive washback that includes awareness about the test’s importance, logistic accommodations (less-sized groups) and materials renovation, the studies show evidence of negative washback as seen from the decolonial option. For instance, teachers’ and students’ pressure to obtain good results reflects on grammar and vocabulary-oriented classes that strive for grammatical excellence solely (Barletta & May, 2006). Thus, this study aligns with the idea that test-related constructs are predominant in teaching and learning, also evidenced in the international literature (Dawadi, 2021; Gashaye, 2020; Rahman et al., 2021; Tayeb et al., 2014)

Likewise, Barletta (2005) and Barletta and May (2006) argue that the tension between the national bilingual policies’ communicative approach and the test’s actual grammar approach leads teachers to take a side or promote limited visions of communicative competence (Barletta & May, 2006). Also, the authors point out that washback intensity, roughly the importance assigned to tests (Wanatabe, as cited in Barletta, 2005), leads to contrastive teaching scenarios where standardized tests are at the center or periphery. They argue that contextual needs gain predominance in the EFL classroom when high scores are perceived as a lesser priority. Hence, the authors assert that teachers’ positioning and beliefs play a major role in tests’ washback as they usually make the class decisions.

In this line, Martínez (2007) conducted an action research project at a private high school in Bogota, to broaden high-order thinking skills by selecting actions of competence as a means for eleventh-grade students to achieve high performance in the English section of Prueba Saber. Her findings demonstrate that the pedagogical intervention helped students perform higher in the standardized test. Like Ali and Hamid (2022), the author complied with the structuralist test through practices that offer potential competencies for students to succeed beyond the classroom.

In short, the scarce literature suggests positive washback despite preoccupying factors such as the test’s lack of authenticity (López et al., 2011), test-driven classes and teachers’ beliefs tensions (Barletta, 2005; Barletta & May, 2006). Hence, washback is an inevitable characteristic of tests with direct implications for teaching, learning, and assessment and teachers can either give in to external influences and perhaps sacrifice their beliefs or resist politicized discourses. In the next section, I present an attempt to do the latter.

Discussion

The previous findings show that standardized tests washback at the secondary level in rural areas is negative in light of contextualized testing practices aiming further the achievement goal. Thus, raising awareness among teachers and students is paramount to challenge the power of standardized tests. In this section, I invite readers to consider the ideas presented in Figure 2 as potential ways in which rural teachers and students in secondary education could engage in testing practices leading to positive washback.

Figure 2. Inside-out perspectives and outside-in powers in standardized tests.

Source: Own.

Figure 2 shows three inside-out perspectives and four outside-in powers that influence standardized tests. The three actions at the center call for a localized and introspective analysis, while the four actions at the border denounce the influence of external elements. Also, I have italicized keywords and used action verbs to remind readers that we can indeed contribute to re-existence, ‘understood as the redefining and resignifying of life in conditions of dignity [and standardized tests, in this case]’ (Albán, 2008, p. 85). Subsequently, I will elaborate on the ideas shown in Figure 2.

Inside-out perspectives

Although standardized tests cannot be ignored, given their rootedness and acceptance in current educational systems (Shohamy, 2017) and their role in informing decisions at the local and national levels (Tayeb et al., 2014), teachers and students should still aim at finding a balance among contextual needs, curriculum designs and testing practices. Hence, I propose the analysis of teachers’ and students’ attitudes as the starting point to decolonize standardized tests. After all, students’ attitude towards standardized tests determines the resultant negative or positive washback (Gashaye, 2020), so they and their teachers need to become active and conscious agents in promoting positive washback.

For example, Martinez (2007) could reduce the negative washback by enhancing different skills in test-driven classes at a high school in Bogotá, thus showing that teachers at all levels can convert the inescapable condition of standardized tests into opportunities for students to better their language skills and life conditions. To do this, Ali and Hamid (2022) argue the importance of teacher agency, which they define as teachers’ willingness to rethink their world from a sensitive sociopolitical and ideological perspective. In short, teachers and students have the power to initiate the change they want to see in their academic world. In this line, embracing local and social approaches could help with such an initiative, making this idea the second inside-out perspective proposed.

In rural contexts where State abandonment is rampant (Peláez & Usma, 2017) and learning a foreign language becomes a lesser priority (Barletta & May, 2006), testing practices could draw from community-based pedagogies (CBP), which put local assets at the center of teaching and learning (Sharkey et al., 2016). That is to say, testing constructs that integrate local knowledges can give students opportunities to assess their realities and act upon their contexts’ conditions. In this line, the studies reviewed do not addres CBP directly but there is evidence that teachers consider students’ socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in their teaching approaches. To illustrate, one of Barletta and May’s (2006) teacher participants explains that ‘her major role is to make students aware of the importance of their participation in the construction of a more prosperous community’ (p. 253). Thus, her decisions in the classroom consider the student’s persona but could still benefit from direct engagement with community members (Sharkey et al., 2016). In this sense, teachers should acknowledge that individuals go through different circumstances and that testing practices should be empathetic and flexible (Herrera et al., 2022). I argue that integrating the local community’s voice regarding what, why and how to approach standardized tests is one way of enacting the assessment’s flexible characteristic.

Finally, considering that washback intensity influences the washback direction (Green, 2007), promoting horizontal and democratic testing practices could be helpful since they acknowledge students’ active role in their learning process (Shohamy, 2001, 2007). Herrera et al., (2022) posit that some democratic practices include consulting and co-constructing assessment strategies with students and providing opportunities for self- and co-assessment, among others. Simply put, these practices imply making students active participants while designing and implementing testing practices.

In this scenario, horizontal and democratic approaches refer to deciding and planning with students how to address standardized tests’ influence in the class, unlike the studies reviewed in which horizontality seemed absent. Thus, teachers could ask students how they feel about standardized tests and how much they want to focus on them. This aligns with epistemología del sujeto conocido (to-be-known subject), that is, letting go of the idea that we know everything about someone or something and embracing (or at least considering) the other’s ideas and motives (Vasilachis, 2009)—in other words, establishing channels of communication to give and receive feedback from students, thus preventing purposeless testing practices, as suggested by Barletta (2005).

Different from the to-be-known subject, the sujeto cognoscente (knowing subject) assumes understanding and control over the other (Vasilachis, 2009), who is ‘constructed as passive and objectivized, voiceless, and unable to interpret his own reality’ (Guerrero, 2020, p. 51). In this line, teachers often assume a knowing position and make unilateral decisions for their students, as shown, for example, in Barletta and May (2006). The authors explain that teachers who considered grammatical knowledge a priority taught grammar-driven classes, while the teacher who prioritized contextual needs integrated them into her model of the communicative approach. Similarly, the teachers’ worldviews regarding the standardized test’s importance seem to have influenced students, who also showed interest in test achievement. Thus, Barletta and May’s (2006) teachers reflect a knowing subject positioning that deprives students of participating actively in language testing. Therefore, horizontal and democratic testing practices have the potential to not only dignify students’ agency but also take off some of the responsibility imposed on teachers (Remolina-Caviedes, 2019; Shohamy, 2017). In doing so, they should also look at the situation from the outside perspective to which I turn my attention next.

Outside-in powers

This section elaborates on the four actions proposed in Figure 2 to challenge outside-in powers. First, it is paramount to assess powerful socioeconomic institutions since teachers are out of the map during the horunvendoush for some or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious day for others. After the test day, they usually learn about standardized tests from students’ voices, which might lead to learning opportunities. However, there is a lack of opportunities to give feedback to standardized tests since they are designed from a top-down and homogenized perspective, responding to external and more powerful interests than those of teachers’ and students’ (Haus & Schmicheck, 2022). In this line, Remolina-Caviedes (2019) argues that socioeconomic interests determined by institutions such as the World Bank or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) permeate the policies of external evaluation of Colombia and Brazil. Thus, stakeholders ought to assess not only the political environment at the international level but also at the national level. Given this, teacher and student agencies to do research are instrumental so that they can make informed decisions.

Despite this panorama, teachers ‘can strive to subvert the way we understand language, assessment, and its purposes’ (Haus & Schmicheck, 2022, p. 778). Therefore, the second action proposed is that teachers attempt to unveil hidden discourses in external policy and curriculum so that students’ well-being and language learning remain at the center of teaching, learning and testing. Given this, it is relevant to dignify the role of schools’ assessment systems and analyze external curriculum from different loci of enunciation since English language classes becoming test-oriented results in the assessment being test-oriented as well (Barletta, 2005; Barletta & May, 2006; Gashaye, 2020; López et al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2021; Tayeb et al., 2014).

In this line, although national educational authorities have opened to approaches beyond the grammar scope, considering, for example, the suggested curriculum structure series issued by MEN, they still respond to globalized objectives that require discussion. The word suggested is italicized because the constructs in the series are tested in standardized tests, thus pushing teachers to integrate such suggestions. Nevertheless, they could be analyzed in light of local circumstances to contribute to human development, calling teachers to embrace their roles as agents of change and enhance LAL (Giraldo, 2018; Guerrero, 2010). For instance, Martinez (2007) analyzes the local assessment system and its relationship with test objectives to diminish negative washback. This critical examination of policy and curriculum should also be done at the (de)humanistic level of tests.

The third action invites teachers to assess the dehumanized ideology evident in standardized tests’ one-size-fits-all model. That is to say, the performance of the entire student (and teacher) population is measured with one single test that makes no adjustments for anyone and neglects sociocultural realities, knowledges and subjectivities in favor of ‘grammatical competence, textual competence and textual coherence’ (Barletta & May, 2006, p. 243). Thus, stakeholders could follow the example of Ali and Hamid’s (2022) participants, who promoted social skills and community building despite socioeconomic pressure to focus on standardized tests solely. In other words, they found ways to make their teaching and testing practices culturally and socially sensitive.

Regarding the previous issue, some might argue that standardized tests promote equality because they are the same for everyone; however, teachers should consider the idea of a hidden agenda that strives to maintain the status quo (Emery, 2002, as cited in Remolina-Caviedes, 2019). In this sense, Ortiz et al. (2019) argue that learning English continues to be advertised as the language that guarantees socioeconomic development. However, how can it be equalitarian to test students from privileged backgrounds the same way as those coming to school as a way to at least have a meal? How can standardized tests become meaningful when they ignore local realities? To answer these questions, we can attempt to ‘reclaim the human and democratic dimension of assessment as an educational practice, and particularly of external examinations’ (Remolina-Caviedes, 2019, p. 17).⁷ Likewise, we can make stakeholders and educational authorities accountable for their responsibilities. Thus, I shall finish this section by urging teachers to identify capitalist strategies transferred to the educational system.

As stated by Rahman et al. (2021), one of the causes of negative washback was teachers’ lack of training, so despite teachers’ willingness to re-imagine testing practices, they need opportunities and support for professional development. In this regard, Remolina-Caviedes (2019) argues that making teachers the only ones responsible for positive or negative washback and promoting competitiveness between them is evidence of the influence of capitalist and political interests in the educational field. Nevertheless, having in mind these actions to challenge outside-in powers could help to reduce teachers’ imposed and self-imposed burden regarding students’ achievement in standardized tests and the deriving implications (Gashaye, 2020; Tayeb et al., 2014). In turn, this proposal shall also help to release the tension between teaching for testing and teaching for life.

Conclusions

In this paper, I explored standardized tests washback for rural teachers and students in secondary education, drawing from the decolonial option; however, scholars worldwide may align with or draw from the ideas expressed here. I argue that the washback is negative in the studies reviewed, considering that language assessment should provide opportunities to enhance education as a whole (Herrera et al., 2022). This conclusion results from analyzing the washback effect introspectively and retrospectively.

To begin with, standardized tests’ high stakes diminish washback intensity as the pressure from parents and schools on students to achieve a high performance generates a negative attitude beforehand. In the same fashion, the washback direction is rendered negative since teachers tend to prioritize test constructs and focus their efforts on preparing students for a test rather than encouraging language learning skills or addressing contextual needs. The focus on test constructs results in the narrowing of syllabus contents, given that the constructs relevant for tests become predominant.

In addition, they come with low authenticity issues as there is a mismatch between test tasks and real-life tasks. Hence, students miss opportunities to develop abilities that could be useful in their lives beyond the classroom, making local and social approaches relevant to decolonize testing. However, some circumstances are challenging to address without a profound ideology transformation. Stakeholders may resignify standardized tests drawing from inside-out perspectives and still find themselves within a capitalist system serving external socioeconomic interests.

Therefore, I propose three actions: Analyze teacher and student attitudes, embrace local and social approaches, and promote horizontal approaches to direct washback from an inside-out perspective. Hence, teachers and students may consider freeing themselves from standardized tests to work on contextualized needs and language learning. In doing so, it is paramount to approach horizontal and democratic testing practices. Likewise, I suggest four actions: Assess socioeconomic powerful institutions, unveil discourses in external and curriculum, recognize dehumanized tests’ ideologies and identify capitalist strategies transferred to the educational system to challenge outside-in powers (un)controllable to different extents. Thus, stakeholders should question this instrument’s underlying intentions ‘not only in terms of its effects and consequences but in terms of the social values it embodies’ (McNamara & Ryan, 2011, p. 165).

To wrap up, the fact that standardized tests are presented as a mechanism to inform students about their competencies in specific areas and as a support in the processes of self-evaluation and improvement of educational institutions (MEN, 2022) should not take our attention from their historical failure to meet the characteristics of good tests: ‘not be degrading or threatening to students [and teachers], build a person’s confidence, become learning experiences, become an integral part of a student’s ongoing classroom and bring out the best in students’ (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019, p. 3).

Implications

Imagine that your students are utterly uninterested in getting high scores on standardized tests. Should we talk them into the importance of such tests within the current capitalist educational system? Probably not. I have shown throughout this paper that focusing solely on standardized tests achievement implies negative washback, so such a scenario could help bring in local knowledges to the arena and strengthen classroom assessment, thustaking every opportunity to assess students’ language abilities overall (Herrera et al., 2022; Mousavi, 2009), especially listening, writing, and speaking neglected over test-related tasks (López et al., 2011).

In the end, we have no control over students’ actions during the decisive day when students determine their future, so let us consider the possibility of not teaching for testing but teaching for life, integrating social issues into pedagogical practices. To do this, it is paramount to establish horizontal communication channels with students to co-direct testing practices. Likewise, it is instrumental to dignify the local communities’ role and integrate their knowledge into teaching and testing practices Otherwise, teachers and students can identify specific capitalist strategies transferred into their local educational system and trace colonial power sources to at least play the game.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to professor Frank Giraldo who provided comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. His insightful ideas and eye-opening lectures inspired me to write this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yimmy Alexander Hoyos Pipicano

Yimmy Alexander Hoyos Pipicano holds an M.A. in English Didactics from Universidad Surcolombiana and a B.A. in English Language Teaching from Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. He is currently a full-time teacher at a rural public school in Colombia, Huila. His research interests include interculturality, decoloniality and education for social justice.

Notes

1 The official standardized test that Colombian students sit at the end of their secondary education.

2 The National Ministry of Education included the Pre-A1 classification, given that many students are below the first CEFR level (Icfes, 2021).

3 Although the word knowledge is singular in standard English, I use it in the plural to acknowledge other ways of knowing beyond the canonical scope.

4 I did not include placement tests (OOPT) or private standardized tests (IELTS, TOEFL).

5 Although I considered a ten-year period initially, I had to expand the gap in the Colombian context because of the limited number of studies.

6 The official indexing system by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

7 Own translation.

Appendix A

Table

Part	Sample	Competence/ skill
1	Lea las descripciones de la columna de la izquierda (1–5). ¿Cuál palabra de la columna de la derecha (A – G) concuerda con cada descripción? When children see this person, they often laugh and have fun. A. clown B. doctor C. driver D. farmer E. footballer F. nurse G. pirate H. teacher	Lexical
2	Complete las cinco conversaciones Have you got a dress I can wear? A. That’s fine! B. Sure! C. Enjoy!	Pragmatic and sociolinguistic
3	Lea el texto y responda las preguntas. You can have problems in the Middle East if you show A. any head movement. B. the bottom of your feet. C. your legs and nose.	Literal reading comprehension
4	Lea el texto y responda las preguntas What is the purpose of the writer? A. describe the experience of having a pet B. advise people on how to deal with cats as pets C. explain how to save money if getting a cat D. name differences between cats and other pets	Inferential reading comprehension
5	Lea el texto y seleccione la palabra correcta para cada espacio. A. neither B. nor C. not D. no	Lexical and grammatical

Source: ICFES (2022) https://www.icfes.gov.co/cuadernillo-1-2022.