Washback Effects of the CET-4 Writing Test on College English Teaching and Learning: Research Trends and Key Issues

Tonghua Ouyang

doi:10.63313/LLCS.9135

Authors

Tonghua Ouyang University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/LLCS.9135

Keywords:

CET-4 Writing Test, Washback Effect, College English Teaching, Language Assessment

Abstract

Washback refers to the influence of testing on teaching and learning, particularly in high-stakes examinations. As one of the most influential national English proficiency tests in China, the College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) has a significant impact on college English instruction, especially through its writing section. This study aims to examine the washback effects of the CET-4 writing test on college English teaching and learning by reviewing and synthesizing relevant studies from international journals and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The findings indicate that the CET-4 writing test produces both positive and negative washback. Positively, it promotes instructional improvement, clarifies teaching objectives, and enhances students’ learning motivation. Meanwhile, negative effects such as exam-oriented teaching, mechanical learning strategies, and reduced creativity in writing are also observed. In addition, recent research highlights the growing role of digital tools and artificial intelligence in shaping new forms of washback. It is concluded that diversified empirical approaches and technological integration are essential for maximizing positive washback and improving college English writing instruction.

References

[1] Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129.

[2] Feng, X. Y. (2020). An empirical study of the washback effect of writing tests on college students’ writing learning: A case study of CET-4. Journal of Kaifeng Vocational College of Culture & Art, 40(11), 63–66.

[3] Gu, X. D. (2007). An empirical study of the washback effect of CET-4 and CET-6 on college English teaching in China. Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition), (04), 119–125.

[4] Heaton, J. B. (2000). Writing English language tests. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

[5] Jin, Y., & Yang, H. Z. (2006). The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET-4. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 21–33.

[6] Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–256.

[7] Qi, L. X. (2011). Theoretical and empirical research on washback in language testing. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, (04), 23–28.

[8] Xu, L. L., Hu, J. H., & Su, Y. (2024). Learners’ cognition and behaviors in AI-assisted academic English writing. Foreign Language World, (03), 51–58.

[9] Xu, Z. R. (2018). Negative washback effects of high-stakes English writing tests in China. Journal of Yangzhou University (Higher Education Research Edition), 22(02), 115–119.

[10] Wu, J. X. (2025). An analysis of the washback effect of CET-4 and CET-6 on English teaching. In Proceedings of the 5th Academic Conference on Educational Information Technology Innovation and Development (pp. 693–695). Zhaotong University.

[11] Yang, H. Z., & Weir, C. (1998). The validation research on CET-4/6. Shanghai Journal of Foreign Languages, 6(4), 355–368.

[12] Yang, H. Z. (2003). A fifteen-year review of CET-4 and CET-6. Foreign Languages (Journal of Shanghai International Studies University), (03), 21–29.

[13] Zhang, F. (2017). An analysis of the washback effect of CET-4 writing tests on college English teaching. English Square, (08), 102–103.

[14] Zhang, Y. L., & Kong, F. Y. (2021). Washback of high-stakes language testing: Implications for integrating teaching, learning, and assessment. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, (03), 76–82, 108.

[15] Zou, S., & Xu, Q. (2014). Criterion-referenced testing and its washback effect: A case study of the TEM. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, (01), 42–48, 93.