Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall & Winter 2016, pp. 47-71
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory Courses in Iran:
Teaching Practices and Strategies in Focus
Omid Rezaei
PhD candidate, Faculty of Foreign Languages University of Isfahan,
Iran
Hossein Barati1
Associate professor, Faculty of Foreign Languages University of
Isfahan
Manijeh Youhanaee
Associate professor, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of
Isfahan
Abstract
The aim of this study was to discover teaching practices and strategies
employed in IELTS preparatory courses taught via strategy-based vs.
nonstrategy-based instruction in Isfahan, Iran. In so doing, two preparatory
courses: strategy-based vs. nonstrategy-based instruction were selected.
Courses were observed by employing Communicative Orientation of
Language Teaching (COLT) which is a standard observation scheme (Hayes,
2003). The results revealed that positive washback was observed in both
strategy-based and nonstrategy-based classes and candidates in strategy-
based group outperformed their counterparts in nonstrategy-based group in
reading and writing section of IELTS. In contrast, nonstrategy-based group
performed significantly better in speaking section. There was, however, no
significant difference between the two groups' performance on the listening
section of the test. The findings of the study will have implications for both
IELTS teachers and preparation centers in determining effective teaching
methods for the courses they offer.
Keywords: COLT, IELTS, Observation, Preparatory Course, Washback
Received on April 16, 2016
Accepted on December 3, 2016
1. Introduction
Language proficiency tests have gained unprecedented prominence in
modern societies. They provide vital information for policy-makers to make
crucial decisions about the professional and academic life of test takers.
1 Corresponding author: h.barati@gmail.com
48 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
Language tests are controversial issues and continue to make debates among
language researchers and test developers. Such tests can have tremendous
effect on individual test taker's life, micro level, and on the society, macro
level. They can select, motivate, and reward; in the same way they can
exclude, demotivate, and punish.
The last few decades have witnessed a great number of studies on test
impact on teaching or 'washback'. This has helped researchers to examine the
desirable as well as undesirable effects tests might have at macro level, as
they might at micro level.
One such areas where the effects of test at both micro and macro levels
are greatly observed is in preparatory courses for the tests such as
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Test of English
as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). These tests serve as gatekeepers for
admission of international students to English-speaking universities. The
daily increase in the demand of students worldwide for getting prepared for
the high stakes tests has led to countless preparatory classes, in a way that the
present situation could rightly be referred to as test preparation industry.
In Iran too, test preparatory classes have been quite common in the last
few years. The study has particularly focused on IELTS preparatory courses
in the country. IELTS is a task-based test which has been considered as a
reliable indication of English proficiency on an international scale (Hayes,
2003). The IELTS Test (IELTS.org) is an established and widely used
international English language proficiency exam that comes in two formats,
each for a different purpose: Academic and General Training. The test has
four sections, one for each of the language skills, which are equally weighted
to give an overall averaged band of proficiency measured from zero (lowest)
to nine (highest).
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 49
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
IELTS preparatory courses are mostly characterized by being short and
providing candidates with the required skills and strategies for completing the
test successfully. Teachers for such courses are pressed by both the
candidates who need their IELTS score as soon as possible, and the institutes
which expect successful courses for their advertisement.
It is obvious, then, that IELTS has great impact (i.e., washback) on its
preparatory courses. Washback studies traditionally followed two lines of
research. Firstly, to investigate the effect of a new test on teachers and
learners (e.g., Cheng 1997; Qi, 2002 in Chinese context; Watanbe, 1996 in
Japanese context). Secondly, to examine the effect of a test which is not
compatible with the current teaching principles and techniques in an
educational context (e.g., Alderson & Hamp-Lyons, 1996).
On this ground, IELTS assesses the required language skills in the test
takers who need to handle academic tasks in their later foreign education.
Therefore, the test's preparatory courses should mirror university tasks
necessary for graduate education. This is basically concerned with principles
of communicative language teaching and hence focuses on English for
Academic purposes (EAP), authentic materials and tasks, and learner-
centered approach which aim to promote learner autonomy.
This study was an attempt to evaluate the way IELTS preparatory courses
are offered and to see in particular how the teaching practices used in such
courses affect their success. With this in mind, the study focuses on the way
the structure of the test affects the method of instruction employed by the
teachers. This, to the best of the researchers' knowledge, has so far been left
intact area in Iran.
2. Literature Review
Research investigating the consequential validity of the IELTS Test has
considered washback on teaching practices (Green 2006a, 2007; Mickan &
50 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
Motteram, 2008), teaching materials (Saville & Hawkey, 2004), learners’
approaches to test preparation (Brown, 1998; Elder & O'Loughlin, 2003;
Green, 2007; Read & Hayes, 2003; Mickan & Motteram, 2009), learners'
perspectives on IELTS preparatory course expectations and outcomes
(Green 2006a) and score gain (Elder & O'Loughlin, 2003; Green, 2007;
Humphreys et al., 2012; O'Loughlin & Arkoudis, 2009).
Based on the effect high stakes tests, especially IELTS, have on society,
in general, and on individuals, in particular, both test developers and testing
researchers have focused on the washback of such tests. For instance,
research on the washback of IELTS (e.g., Read & Hayes, 2003; Hayes &
Read, 2004; Saville & Hawkey, 2004; Hawkey, 2006; Mickan & Motteram
2008, 2009) has shed light on the sophistication of the educational system
and test scores interpretation, specifically in accordance with role of teachers
(see also Gibson & Swan 2008).
Read and Hayes carried out a study in two phases on the impact of IELTS
on the preparatory courses in New Zealand (Hayes, 2003; Read & Hayes,
2003; Hayes & Read, 2004). The first phase of the study showed that
preparatory courses in the country are generally of three types: (1) as an
independent, part-time course that was relatively short; (2) as an optional
component of a full-time general English program; and (3) as an integrated
component of an extended full-time course in English for academic purposes
(EAP).
In the second phase, which was in form of observation, two IELTS
preparatory courses in two different public English schools were observed.
Both courses had the aim of preparing candidates for academic module of
IELTS. The first course was an independent course providing candidates with
strategies and skills required in the test by focusing on the components of the
course. The second course was a general course with the aim of improving
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 51
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
candidates' general proficiency, academic skills and finally making students
familiar with the test.
The study highlighted a great difference between these two courses. The
most obvious was 'who had control of the lessons' (Hayes & Read, 2004, p.
104). In the first class teacher was in the complete control of the class and
spent most of the time of the class teaching effective strategies for taking the
test. On the other hand, in the second class teacher mostly served the role of
an assistant for learners practicing individually or in pairs. Regarding the
content, in the first class content was mostly IELTS-like materials. On the
contrary, the second class covered a wider range of materials with the
purpose of teaching language skills. In spite of these differences, not much
variation was observed between the pretest and posttest of both classes.
Findings of the study revealed that there was a great deal of negative
washback in the first school. However, the differences between the two
courses may be attributable to their specific aims and structures rather than to
the test per se. Therefore, to better understand and explain its effects on
teaching, a comprehensive evaluation of the test preparation program is
necessary.
Mickan and Motteram (2008) conducted a narrower scrutiny of IELTS
preparatory courses in Australia. They took a step further by analyzing not
only the content and teaching practices in the class but also the interaction
between teachers and learners. Consistent with the findings of Hayes and
Read (2004), this study also showed that preparatory courses are mainly
teacher-centered and test-oriented. Dominant activities were test practice, test
skills-focused exercises, and explanations of the format and content of the
IELTS modules and test-taking procedures. The instruction also focused on
language awareness, particularly on the discourses and linguistic elements
relevant to actually doing the test. The focus on language was integrated into
52 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
the modelling of responses, reflections on test items and giving feedback on
practice tests. However, the researchers did not consider these activities as
instances of negative washback, they argued from the sociocultural
perspective that the instruction in the IELTS preparation class constituted a
process of socialization into test-taking behaviors and into the values or
priorities embodied in the test.
One of the drawbacks of IELTS-observational studies is that they lack a
comparison between courses aimed at IELTS preparation with those with
purposes other than exam preparation. Without this comparison, it would be
hard to evidentially link the observed practices to the test. Accordingly,
Green (2006) conducted a series of observations focusing on IELTS
preparatory courses and classes for EAP writing in the UK by comparing the
test preparation classes and the nontest EAP classes, "evidence was found for
substantial areas of common practice between IELTS and other forms of
EAP, but also for some narrowing of focus in IELTS preparatory classes that
could be traced to test design features" (Green, 2006, p. 333). In accordance
with Alderson and Hamp-Lyons' (1996) study in the TOEFL context, this
study revealed that teachers' practices in IELTS preparatory courses may be
based on the test or the other way round. Therefore, Green (2006, pp. 363–
364) noted "many of the differences observed between classes might be
linked rather to teacher or institutional variables, such as levels of
professional training and beliefs about effective learning, than to the
influence of the test".
In a more recent study, Sadeghi and Ketabi (2014) investigated the impact
of high stakes tests on preparatory courses in Iranian context. The study was
carried out by selecting four IELTS and TOEFL preparatory courses in Iran.
The design of the study was ethnographic and the instruments for collecting
data were observation and field notes. To have more precise and directed
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 53
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
observation, University of Cambridge Observation Scheme (UCOS) was also
used. The scheme was used to show how much instruction was test-driven.
The results revealed that preparatory courses, methods of teaching, and
syllabus were heavily influenced by the test. Therefore, this study is an
attempt to address the following questions in Iranian context:
1. What teaching practices are employed in IELTS preparatory
courses taught via strategy-based vs. nonstrategy-based
instruction?
2. Which teaching method: strategy-based vs. nonstrategy-based is
more significantly effective on candidates' performance on
different sections of IELTS?
3. Method
3.1 Design
Both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection were employed,
therefore the design of this study is mixed-method.
3.2 Participants
The participants of this study were Iranian IELTS candidates pursuing their
preparation for IELTS in an IELTS preparation center in Isfahan, Iran.
Generally, there are two types of IELTS preparatory courses held in this
preparation center. First, the course which is part of the normal curriculum of
the center which means that graduates of the center enter the IELTS course as
a requirement to complete their general English courses and the determined
curriculum of the center. Second, the courses which participants take part in
through a placement test and they seek preparation for attending the test. The
former courses are mostly aimed at improving the proficiency of participants
through IELTS-oriented tasks and exercises. Therefore, test-taking strategies
and skills are not in the focus of the course (nonstrategy-based courses). The
latter courses were mostly oriented on making participants familiar with test-
taking strategies and skills. In these courses participants get familiar and
54 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
practice employing test-taking strategies to improve their test scores
(strategy-based courses).
To fulfill the purpose of the study one nonstrategy-based and one
strategy-based IELTS preparation classes were selected. Prior to the
beginning of the study the course director in the center was informed of the
whole process of data collection and he was asked to fill in a consent form for
ethical consideration of the study. Each class whether strategy based or
nonstrategy-based included eight participants.
All participants took an authentic IELTS past paper to make the
researcher sure of their homogeneity. To standardize the scoring of the test,
IELTS official scoring procedure from www.IELTS.org was utilized. All the
prospective participants of the study scored 4-5 based on standard scoring
scale of IELTS.
3.3 Instruments
3.3.1 Observation
For observing classes two methods of observation were possible. One was
recording the whole class sessions by using a camera and another was by
completing field notes and using coding sheets. Using camera in classes was
against the policy of the IELTS preparation center the second method of
observation was employed by the researcher. Instead of simply coding the
classroom interactions and activities in real time, notes were taken during the
lesson and timings were recorded to the nearest second. The notes were used
to code COLT as the standard observation checklist used in this study.
The scheme is oriented on a solid theory of communicative approach in
language teaching. It scrutinizes all aspects of teaching processes and
strategies from a communicative point of view. It examines the discourse of
teachers and students, the form of the questions students and teachers ask,
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 55
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
type of tasks an exercises completed in the class, the materials covered in the
class with a focus on the authenticity of the materials.
The scheme is made up of two parts, but only its first part (part A) was
utilized in this study. Yu (2006) mentions that Part A concerns with the
macro level analysis of activities in the classroom which must be completed
during the teaching time which is based on five criteria. The first criterion is
activity type which enables the observer to examine the type of tasks and
exercises used in the class. The second criterion deals with participant
organization, such as teacher-centered activities as opposed to student-
centered activities, and it records the amount of time devoted to different
types of class interaction. The third criterion which is content focuses on the
orientation of the content and whether they are code-based of meaning-based.
Code-based instruction is characterized as form-focused teaching which
mainly is concerned with form, function, discourse, and sociolinguistic rules,
whereas meaning-based orientation is realized by the subclasses of other
categories. Students' modality as the fourth criterion is mainly about the
amount of time learners spend on four skills of language in the time of the
class. The last criterion, materials, deals with the type, length, and source of
texts being used in the class.
3.3.2 IELTS retired test
A retired IELTS test adapted from Cambridge IELTS series was employed to
both homogenize the participants and make sure that they all have the same
level of proficiency and also to measure the efficacy of strategy-based as
opposed to nonstrategy-based methods of teaching IELTS preparatory
courses. The test was adopted from the past paper collection published by
Cambridge University press to obviate the need for estimating the reliability
and validity of the test by the researcher. Because the test was already valid
and reliable there was no need for piloting the test.
56 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
3.4 Procedure
3.4.1 Course selection
To answer this study's questions an IELTS preparation center in Isfahan, Iran
was selected. To start the study, it was necessary to get the written
permission from IELTS preparation center's administrator. In so doing, the
center's administrator was informed about the whole process of data
collection and a written permission was signed by the center had two types of
courses: one for graduate learners of the center who completed general
English courses and another one was exam preparatory course for those who
would take part in the actual test. In the former course learners after passing a
general English course consisting of 12 semesters are required to take part in
IELTS preparation courses which is considered as an advanced course. In
spite of the fact that these courses are labeled as preparatory courses, they are
nonstrategy-based courses in which the primary goal is to enhance learners'
general proficiency rather than making them familiar with test-taking
strategies. On the other hand, the latter courses are designed for those
candidates who are real IELTS candidates who will take part in the test after
finishing the course. These courses have the purpose of making students
strategic test-takers and also familiarizing them with the test format and
tasks, therefore they are mainly strategy-based courses.
3.4.2 Precourse activities
In the center one strategy-based and one nonstrategy-based class including
eight participants were selected. To ensure that all candidates have the same
level of proficiency prior to observation they all sat for a retired IELTS test.
Based on IELTS scores those who scored between four and five were deemed
as the participants.
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 57
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
3.4.3 Whilecourse activities
Both strategy-based and nonstrategy-based courses were based on four skills
tested in IELTS. Ten sessions each 120 minutes depending on the
administrative policy of the center were devoted to each skill. For
observation five session of 10 sessions allocated to teaching each skill were
randomly selected. The whole sessions from the beginning to the end were
observed by the researcher and field notes with exact timing of the events in
the class were filled. Coding sheets of COLT were completed after each
observation based on field notes.
3.4.4 Postcourse activities
The 41st session of the course was the assessment session in which a retired
IELTS test was administered to examine the efficiency of methods employed
in the courses. The timing and all administration conditions were kept similar
to the real test. All participants were informed of the results of the test
through email. At the end of the process of data collection to appreciate both
participants, instructors and administrators of each center were given an
IELTS preparation book as a gift.
3.5 Data Analysis
3.5.1 Qualitative data
To make the researcher able to decide on the teaching practices and strategies
employed in each class data obtained from observations had to be coded
based on the percentage of the time of the class devoted to each category of
observation schemes. Field notes were used to compensate for inaccuracy of
observation schemes due to the fact that simultaneous observation and
completing the form could cause inaccuracy on the part of the observer. After
coding the observation schemes the percentage of time devoted to each
category under COLT in strategy-based and nonstrategy-based classes were
compared.
58 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
3.5.2 Quantitative data
To compare the effectiveness of the methods, test scores of posttest of both
classes were put in independent sample t-test.
4. Results
4.1 Teaching Practices and Strategies
The categories under the observation scheme used in this study, that is,
COLT were coded based on the time devoted to each category and
subcategory during the whole class time. The results are presented in Tables.
The first COLT category is concerned with the focus of the activity in the
class and whether it is oriented on the teacher or on the students working as a
whole class, in groups or as individuals. Table 1 illustrates the percentage of
time devoted to each subcategory of participant organization in both groups.
Table 1
Participant Organization
Participant Organization
Strategy-based
Average
Non strategy-based
Average
Teacher to Student/Class %
46
22.5
Student to Student/Class %
17.7
39
Choral %
0.00
1.2
Group - same task %
13.5
26.3
Individual - same task %
22.8
11
Individual - different tasks %
0.00
0.00
Total % of Participant organization
100
100
As it is evident from Table 1, strategy-based class was more teacher
centered than nonstrategy-based class. It can be inferred that 46%, which is
almost half of the time of the class, was devoted to teacher-initiated activities.
On the other hand, 39% of the class time in nonstrategy-based class was
allocated to student-student interaction and activities. Another sharp
difference between the groups was related to the amount of the time spent on
individual activities and group work. In strategy-based class only 13.5% of
the time of the class was devoted to group and pair work activities. On the on
the hand, in nonstrategy-based class almost twice as much time as in the
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 59
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
strategy-based class was spent on group work. In contrast, carrying out tasks
individually was more evident in strategy-based classes with 22.8% of the
time as opposed to nonstrategy-based class with 11%.
In the second category of COLT content of classroom from different
perspectives is evaluated. Firstly, it checks on the orientation of the content
whether it focuses on meaning or form. There is also a dichotomy that shows
if the content refers to the immediate classroom (Narrow), or encompasses
broader topics (Broad).
Table 2
Content
Content
Strategy-
based
Average
Nonstrategy-
based
Average
Procedure only %
22.5
6.4
Form - Vocabulary only %
7.4
16.8
Form - Pronunciation only %
0.00
3.4
Form - Grammar only %
9
10.8
Form - Spelling only %
0.00
0.6
Function only %
11.6
9
Discourse only %
4.5
1
Sociolinguistics only %
1.25
6.5
Form - vocabulary and Discourse %
3.75
9.5
Form - vocabulary and Form – Grammar
%
9.5
17
Narrow %
8.5
4.4
Broad %
22
14.6
Total Content %
100
100
The fact that strategy-based classes are teacher fronted is also reflected in
the content category and especially in procedure subcategory which is 22.5%
of the total time of the class. In contrast, nonstrategy-based classes allocate
only 6.4% of their time to this sub category. Following the principles of
strategy-based instruction, the strategy based teacher spent 22% of the time
of the class focusing on the broad topics mostly IELTS exam itself. Similarly,
the nonstrategy-based teacher took more broad topics into consideration at
14.6% that included the monitoring of group and pair work activities.
60 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
Another obvious difference between the classes was regarding pronunciation.
No time was devoted to pronunciation in strategy-based classes as opposed to
nonstrategy-based classes in which 3.4% of the whole time of the class is
spent on practice of pronunciation.
Next category of COLT deals with control of materials. It checks on who
is responsible for the selection of materials. Decisions on the content are
made either by the teacher, the student/s, the teacher and text, or a
combination. Table 3 shows the percentage of the time each subcategory was
in charge of the content of the course.
Table 3
Content Control
Content Control
Strategy-based
Average
Non strategy-based
Average
Teacher/text %
64.7
46.5
Teacher/text/ student %
36.3
54.5
Total % of Content control
100
100
As it can be seen from Table 3 in strategy based classes 64.7% of the time
of the class teachers made decisions about the content of the course, and the
rest 36.3% was shared between students and the teacher. And students where
never allowed to make decision about content on their own. On the other
hand, in nonstrategy-based classes this was divided between teacher and
students and tasks evenly at 54.5%. This could be seen when students were
asked to carry out group and pair work. Teacher/text alone account for 46.5%
of the total time of the class.
The fact that strategy-based class was more teacher-centered was again
highlighted in this category. When comparing strategy-based and
nonstrategy-based classes it can be seen that students enjoy more freedom to
have control over the selection of materials compared with strategy-based
ones. Besides, students in nonstrategy-based class spend more time on
productive skills than receptive skills in contrast to strategy-based classes.
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 61
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
In the next section which is called 'students modality' the amount of time
devoted to each language skill and also their combinations are examined. It
also includes a section concerning acting and drawing which was actually
absent in the classes in the focus of this study (Table 4).
Table 4
Student Modality
Student Modality
Strategy-based
Average
Non strategy-based
Average
Listening only %
28
14
Speaking only %
16.5
16.7
Reading only %
12
27.2
Writing only %
7.5
13.5
Other only %
0.00
0.00
L + S %
24
12
L + R %
4.5
9
L + W %
0.5
1.5
S + R %
0.00
1.5
L + S + W %
0.00
2.5
L + S + R %
7
2.1
Total % of Student modality
100
100
Listening in isolation with 28% was the most frequently-used skill in
strategy-based class. It is followed by speaking with 16.5% of the total time
of the class. Reading with 12% and writing with 7.5% are less frequently-
used skills in the class. In this regard, time was more equally devoted to skills
in nonstrategy-based classes, and reading was the most frequently-used skill
at 27.2%.
Considering the combination of skills, a counterbalance between L+S and
L+ R in strategy-based and nonstrategy-based was observed. Time devoted to
L + S combination in strategy-based is twice as much as the time devoted to
the same combination in nonstrategy-based classes. The same was true about
L + R combination in a reverse direction. In case of triple combination of
skills in strategy-based class only 7% of the time was devoted to L+S+R
combination. On the other hand, in nonstrategy-based class L+S+W
62 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
combination L + S + R combination devoted 2.5% and 2.1% of the time to
themselves respectively.
The last category of COLT deals with the materials used in classes. It
looks at the materials from two perspectives one regarding the length of the
materials and the other regarding the authenticity of the materials. The former
perspective labels one sentence and short texts as 'minimal' and longer units
of language as 'extended'. The latter perspectives labels materials either
designed for educational purposes for nonnative speakers (L2 NNS) or piece
of writing for native speakers. Besides, audio and video materials are also
recognized here. Table 5 shows the averaged of the results of materials on
which activities are based.
Table 5
Length and Authenticity of Material Used
Materials Used
Strategy-based
Average
Non strategy-based
Average
Minimal L2 - NNS %
26.5
41.2
Extended L2 - NNS %
11
8.3
Minimal + Extended + L2-NNS %
21.4
11.4
Minimal + Audio + L2-NNS %
3.1
2.8
Extended + Audio + L2-NNS %
10
1.5
Audio + L2-NNS %
0.00
0.00
Audio + Visual + L2-NNS %
0.00
19.3
Minimal + Visual + L2-NNS %
0.00
0.00
Minimal + Student Made %
0.00
3.5
Extended + Student Made %
2.5
4.3
Minimal + Visual + L2-NS
0.00
0.00
Visual + Student Made
0.00
0.00
Visual + L2-NNS
0.00
0.00
Total % of Materials used
74.5
96.3
The results indicated that Minimal L2- NNS was the most common
category in both classes. Also, this Table indicates that non strategy-based
teacher made use of more visual materials for example educational videos to
improve the candidates' listening at 19.3% as opposed to 0.00% in strategy-
based classes. In addition, in nonstrategy-based class a wider range of
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 63
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
materials were used (i.e., Audio + Visual + L2-NNS, Minimal + Student
Made) such as vocabulary revision exercises, discussion questions, and
academic word lists which were absent in nonstrategy-based class.
4.2 Results of Comparing Methods
To ensure the homogeneity of the candidates prior to the beginning of the
experiment all of them sat for IELTS retired test those who scored 4-5 were
chosen as the target participants of the study. The posttest scores of
candidates in both strategy-based and nonstrategy-based groups were
compared by running independent sample t-test. For the test is made up of 4
skills, each skill was separately compared in both groups (p < .001).
The results obtained from speaking posttest indicated that non strategy-
based group (M = 6.53, SD= .39) outperformed strategy-based group (M=
5.50, SD= .30), t (16) = -10.97. Table 6 shows the results of t-test run on
speaking posttest.
Table 6
The Results of t-test in Speaking Posttest
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
5.158
.027
-10.972
55
.000
-1.0345
-11.024
52.218
.000
-1.0345
Regarding reading posttest, strategy-based group (M = 5.92, SD = .35)
gained significantly higher scores than nonstrategy-based group (M= 5.05,
SD = .36), t (16) = 9.25. Table 7 illustrates the results of t-test of posttest
scores of both groups.
Table7
The Results of t-test in Reading Posttest
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2tailed) Mean
Difference
.002 .963 9.257 55 .000 .8768
9.262
54.996
.000
.8768
64 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the
performances of both groups in writing posttest. There was a significant
difference in the scores for strategy-based group (M = 6.41, SD = 0.33) and
nonstrategy-based group (M = 5.5, SD = 0.36); t (16) = 9.61. These results
suggest that strategy-based group performed significantly better than
nonstrategy-based group in writing section of the test. Table 8 shows the
results of t-test on writing posttest.
Table 8
The Results of t-test in Writing Posttest
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
.002
.969
9.613
55
.000
.8935
9.628
54.852
.000
.8935
In the last section of the test, listening, strategy-based group (M= 7.01,
SD= 0.41) and nonstrategy-based group (M= 7.10, SD = 0.33) did not
perform significantly differently t (16) = - 0.85. Table 9 reports the results of
t-test on listening posttest.
Table 9
The Results of t-test in Listening Posttest
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed) Mean
Difference
.339
.563
-.851
55
.399
-.0856
-.848
51.81
.401
-.0856
5. Discussion
This study attempted to investigate different teaching practices and strategies
used in IELTS preparatory courses in Isfahan, Iran. In so doing, two major
types of IELTS preparatory courses: strategy-based and nonstrategy-based
were observed by employing COLT observation scheme. COLT which is a
standard observation scheme (Hayes, 2003) helped the researcher to
scrutinize every nuance of the courses meticulously. Two types of
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 65
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
preparatory courses in the focus of this study were strategy-based and
nonstrategy-based courses. The former was aimed at making candidates
familiar with different sections of the test and helping them employ test-
taking strategies for getting better results on the test. This was accomplished
by teaching test-taking strategies and using exam-like materials. On the other
hand, the latter courses tried to increase the level of proficiency of the
candidates and teaching test-taking strategies was not in the focus of the
course at all. Because, the latter type of preparatory course was in fact the
advanced level of the curriculum of the center, IELTS was not the main
focus, instead increasing learners' communicative competence and language
proficiency was pursued. In other words, IELTS tasks were used as formative
assessment to help the instructor to notice the deficiencies of teaching
practices.
In this section the results obtained from COLT are discussed and evidence
of existence of washback in both classes are traced. Taking participant
organization which focuses on the orientation of activities into account, the
results suggested that strategy-based class was more teacher fronted in
comparison with nonstrategy-based class. This is in line with the findings of
the study conducted by Hayes and Read (2004). They showed that in IELTS
preparatory courses teachers are in complete control of class as opposed to
EAP courses in which learner-centeredness is more noticeable. Being
teacher-centered is one of the remarkable characteristics of exam preparatory
courses. Having to make candidates familiar with an array of strategies that
are to be employed in the test, teachers have to be in the center of the class
and take the control of the activities in the class (Baily, 1996).
On the other hand, in nonstrategy-based classes learners played more
active role and most of the activities were in form of role plays and group
work. This could in fact reflect the essence of communicative approach to
66 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
language teaching and learning. This is in line with findings of the study
conducted by Sadeghi and Ketabi (2014) that showed student-initiated
activities can be considered as instance of positive washback. Therefore, the
construct of IELTS which is communicative is mirrored in teaching practices
in nonstrategy-based courses through learner-centered activities.
The second category of IELTS is concerned with content of the materials
used in the class. As the result revealed, in strategy-based class teacher was
mainly concerned with broad topics that included talking about the test itself
and strategies and tips needed to carry out the tasks successfully and this is an
indication of washback. On the contrary, in nonstrategy-based class
sociolinguistic aspect language was also taken into consideration that is an
indication of communication approach to language. Therefore, in both classes
signs of washback of the test was observed.
Teacher-centeredness of strategy-based class once again was highlighted
by the fact that teachers for 64.7% of the time of the class made decision
about the content of the course. In contrast, teacher in strategy-based class
46.5% of the time determined the content of the course. The findings of this
part of observation are in agreement with those of Hayes (2003) that also
came up with the conclusion that teachers in IELTS preparatory courses as
opposed to EAP courses are more concerned with deciding on the content of
course. This suggest that nonstrategy-based class was more dominated by
principles which considered active role of learners in providing materials. On
the other hand, the test dictated use of exam-like materials which
consequently put the burden of making decision about the content on the
shoulder of teachers.
Next section of COLT is concerned with student modality or portion of
time devoted to each skill or combination of skills in the class. The results
revealed that nonstrategy-based course was mostly oriented on productive
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 67
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
skills, speaking and writing, this can be partly explained by the fact that
nonstrategy-based class involved a lot of pair work and group work whereas
strategy-based class is dominated mostly by receptive skills. This is due to
the fact that classroom discourse is mainly about IELTS itself and reading
tips and instruction of employing test-taking strategies. These findings are in
line with those of Green (2006) that suggest many teaching practices in
preparatory courses should be traced to the test design which means that test
imposes its impact even on student modality.
The last category of COLT, dealing with the materials used in class,
showed that nonstrategy-based class used a wider range of materials
including audio-visual materials comparing to strategy-based class.
Washback of the test was observed in strategy-based class due to the fact that
the materials used in this class were mainly exam-like. Practice tests made a
great portion of materials in strategy-based class. On the other hand, in
nonstrategy-based class authentic materials were used to enhance the
learners' exposure to real life language and exam-task were mostly assigned
as homework.
In the second part of the study the result of the posttest of both groups
were compared. Strategy-based group outperformed nonstrategy-based group
in reading and writing section of the test. It may be explained by use of
exam-like materials during the class which gave the candidates the
opportunity to experience the test before the actual test. The results are not in
line with those of Humphreys et al. (2012) that indicated using exam-like
materials have no significant effect on score gain of IELTS candidates.
On the contrary, nonstrategy-based group outperformed strategy-based
group in speaking posttest. This is in line with study conducted by Elder and
O'Loughlin (2003) which claimed that using interactive tasks and group work
comparing to teaching strategies have more significant effect on candidates'
68 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
performance in speaking section of IELTS. This can be justified by the fact
that pair work and group work can make more contribution to candidates' oral
ability rather than teaching speaking strategies that are mainly in form of
prefabricated chunks.
In addition, no significant difference was observed between the
performances of both groups in listening posttest. In this regard, nonstrategy-
based group being exposed to authentic materials may have given the
candidates the ability to deal with speaking tasks of IELTS as well as those in
nonstrategy-based who practiced exam-like materials and sample tests. It
may be inferred that increasing exposure to authentic material can have the
same effect as employing strategies on candidates' performance.
6. Conclusions and Implications
This study attempted to carry out an evaluation of teaching practices and
strategies employed in IELTS preparatory courses taught via strategy-based
vs. nonstrategy-based instruction. To this end, using a standard observation
scheme, both types of instructions were observed within their corresponding
courses. Moreover, many previous studies in the literature concerned analysis
of ILETS courses which drew significant conclusions and implications for
the current field; and this study had a similar purpose. Particularly, it focused
on the teaching practices and strategies in IELTS preparatory courses. It also
investigated the presence of positive washback of the test in such courses.
Based on the observations and the results of the posttest strategy-based
course, focusing on familiarizing candidates with test-taking strategies,
instances of positive washback were observed, especially on reading and
writing sections of the test. On the contrary, nonstrategy-based course, based
on communicative approach and using exam tasks as assessment, showed
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 69
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
better performance on speaking. Furthermore, it was observed that
performance of both groups was equal on listening posttest.
Regarding offering implications for the conditions of IELTS courses, it
can be suggested that, using the present findings, IELTS instructors can
implement a useful array of teaching practices and strategies in preparatory
courses. IELTS preparation centers can also benefit from the results by
determining the policy of the center to enhance the fruitfulness of the courses
and helping more candidates to gain better scores in IELTS.
With regard to findings related to washback effect it can be recommended
that, if provided with sufficient time, ILETS instructors can use posttest
activities more to evaluate their students' learning. As proved by the results of
the study, one influential activity can be checking learning of skills through
washback. Furthermore, the notion of washback gains more importance
particularly for those instructors who do not include it in their teaching
procedures. So, it is expected that IELTS learners be more conscious of their
learning processes through feedbacks they receive.
References
Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons L. (1996). TOEFL preparatory courses: A
study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280-297.
Bachman, L., & Palmer A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bailey, K. (1999). Washback in language testing. Princeton: Educational
Testing Service.
Brown, J. D. H. (1998). An investigation into approaches to IELTS
preparation, with particular focus on the academic writing component of
the test. IELTS Research Reports, 1, 20-37.
Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for
Hong Kong. Language and education, 11(1), 38 – 54.
Davies, A. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Press
Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Elder, C., & O'Loughlin, K. (2003). Investigating the relationship between
intensive English language study and band score gain on IELTS. IELTS
Research Reports, 4, 207-254.
70 Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2
Evaluation of IELTS Preparatory …
Gibson, C., & Swan, A. (2008). The significance of sociolinguistic
backgrounds of teachers of IELTS test preparation courses in selected
Malaysian institutions. IELTS Research Reports, 8(1), 45 – 144.
Green, A. (2006a). Washback to the learner: Learner and teacher perspectives
on IELTS preparatory course expectations and outcomes. Assessing
Writing, 11(2), 113–134.
Green, A. (2006b). Watching for washback: Observing the influence of the
IELTS academic writing test in the classroom. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 3(4), 333–368.
Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic
writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Humphreys, P., Haugh, M., Fenton-Smith, M., Lobo, A., Michael, R., &
Walkinshaw, I. (2012). Tracking international students' English
proficiency over the first semester of undergraduate study. IELTS
Research Reports, 8(3), 1-41.
Hawkey, R. A. H. (2006). Impact theory and practice: Studies of the IELTS
test and ProgettoLingue: Studies in Language Testing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press and Cambridge ESOL.
Hayes, B., & Read, J. (2004). Preparing students for the IELTS academic
module in New Zealand. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe and A. Curtis (Eds.),
(in press). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and method.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, B. M. (2003). IELTS preparation in New Zealand: an investigation
into the nature of the courses and evidence of washback (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Victoria University, Wilington.
Mickan, P., & Motteram, J. 2008. An ethnographic study of classroom
instruction in an IELTS preparation program. IELTS Research Reports,
8(4), 17-43.
O'Loughlin, K., & Arkoudis, S. (2009). Investigating IELTS exit score gains
in higher education. IELTS Research Reports, 7(2), 95 – 180.
Luxia, Q. (2002). Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical change?
Examining the intended washback of the writing task in a high-stakes
English test in China. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 14(1), 51-74.
Read, J., & Hayes, B. (2003). The impact of IELTS on preparation for
academic study in New Zealand. IELTS Research Reports, 5(4), 153-206.
Sadeghi, S., & Ketabi, S. (2014). High-stake test preparation courses:
Washback in accountability contexts. Journal of Education & Human
Development, 3(1), 17-26.
Saville, N., & Hawkey, R. (2004). A study of impact of the IELTS, with
special reference to its washback on classroom materials. In L. Cheng, Y.
Teaching English Language, Vol. 10, No. 2 71
Rezaei, Barati, and Youhanaee
Watanabe & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research
contexts and method (pp. 125-147). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (1985). Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study.
In Y. P. Lee, A. C. Y. Fok, R. Lord, & G. Low (Eds.), New directions in
language testing (pp. 135-156). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham &
D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 291-302).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Watanabe, Y. (1996a). Does grammar-translation come from the entrance
examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research.
Language Testing, 13(3), 319-333.
Watanabe, Y. (1996b). Investigating washback in Japanese classrooms:
Problems of methodology. In G. Wigglesworth & C. Elder (Eds.), The
language testing cycle: From inception to washback (pp. 319-333).
Australia: Applied Linguistics Association Publication.
