Abstract
Washback is a common term in applied linguistics referring to the influence of testing on teaching and learning, which is a prevailing phenomenon in education. This study examined the nature and scope of the impact of the English General Secondary Certificate Examination (GSCE) on English second secondary language teachers in Al-Karak district located in Jordan. The purpose of this study was to investigate how English language teachers in Al-Karak district who teach second secondary students perceived the impact of the GSCE on their selection of teaching methods. The target population was all English language teachers teaching the second secondary class in Al-Karak District in the scholastic year 2006/2007. A survey questionnaire which consisted of (37) Likert type items was used in order to collect the required data. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part of the study aimed at measuring how the GSCE affected English language teachers' method selection in terms of four domains: activity/time arrangement, teaching methods, materials teachers would use in the classroom and content teachers would teach. The second part of the questionnaire, however, investigated the effect of other factors related to the GSCE on teachers' method selection in terms of four domains: students' learning attitudes, teachers' professionalism in teaching, teachers' perceived external pressure in teaching, and perceived importance of the GSCE. Findings of the study indicated that both the GSCE and the other related factors have affected English language teachers' method selection with a slight statistical difference in favor of  the GSCE washback effect. Another indication obtained from the study was that English language teachers in Jordan used the grammar-translation method in teaching English. The results, also, showed that two types of washback existed in secondary schools in Al-Karak namely: positive and harmful washback. In light of the results, the present study recommended that: 1) teachers' should be provided with professional development opportunities, 2) teachers' monitoring and evaluation policy should be reconsidered, and 3) GSCE should integrate oral language skills as well.

Keywords: Washback, Examination, English, Foreign Language, Teaching, Methods.

Introduction
The phenomenon of how external tests influences teaching and learning is commonly described as “backwash” in general education or as “washback” in language instruction. Literature has indicated that testing washback is a complex concept that becomes even more complex under a variety of interpretations of the phenomenon on teaching and learning (Cheng, Watanabe & Curtis, 2004).
   Appropriate use of tests can promote teaching and learning. Recent research indicated that tests also influence different educational parties, particularly teachers and students' in different ways. Shohamy (1992), in her studies of Arabic as a second language and English as a foreign language for the modified Israeli examinations, indicated “the results obtained from tests can have serious consequences for individuals as well as for programs, since many crucial decisions are made on the basis of test results” (p. 299).
   The GSCE in Jordan tends to touch the lives of both students as well as their teachers; in the sense that it is extremely crucial for students' further careers. Ahmad (2003) maintained that students consider, the GSCE as a path for further university studies and better employment opportunities. On the other hand, secondary teachers are also affected by the exam, through selecting certain teaching methods and techniques during the teaching/learning process. Bani-Hani (1992) reported that such exam is designed to promote changes in L2 teaching in Jordan. Generally speaking, public examinations have assumed a prominent role in influencing the quality of education. This was reported by many researchers such as (Wall and Alderson, 1996; Cheng, 2001; Andrews, Fullilove and Wong, 2002; and Burrows, 2004). Specifically, public examinations are powerful devices, in terms of their effect on the teaching and learning process.

Theoretical background
In general education, the term washback refers to the influence of testing on teaching and learning (Alderson and Wall, 1993). Washback has become an increasingly prevalent and prominent phenomenon in education, “what is assessed becomes what is valued, which becomes what is taught” (McEwen, 1995a, p.42). There seems to be at least two major types of washback studies; those relating to traditional, multiple-choice, large-scale tests, which are perceived to have had mainly negative influences on the quality of teaching and learning. Whereas the second type of studies has shown, however, positive, or no influence on teaching and learning. Many of those studies have turned to focus on understanding the mechanism of how washback is used to change teaching and learning (Cheng, 2003).
   Washback is defined as "the positive and negative impact of tests on the teaching and learning process in classrooms" (Wall and Alderson, 1993, p.41). It refers to "the extent to which the test influences language teachers and learners to do things they would not necessarily otherwise do because of the test" (Hughes, 1993, p.117). Messick (1996, p.241), however, emphasized that "washback, a concept prominent in applied linguistics, refers to the extent to which the interaction and use of a test influences language teachers and learners to do things they would not otherwise do that promote or inhibit language learning". He commented that, "some proponents have even maintained that a test's validity should be appraised by the degree to which it manifests positive or negative washback". Shohamy (1992, p.13) noted that, washback "is the result of the strong authority of external testing and the major impact it has on the lives of test takers". Shohamy (1997), furthermore, described the impact of public exams (washback effect), as the “most powerful devices, capable of changing and prescribing the behavior of those who are affected by their results, that is, administrators, teachers, and students” (p.113). She further stated that, “public exams have often been used to impose new curricula, new textbooks, and new teaching methods by central agencies and decision makers who were aware of the authoritative power of the test”(p.113).

The Mechanism and Assumptions of Washback
A very great significance is attached to the mechanisms through which washback operates, because any research into this phenomenon has to take such mechanisms into consideration. However, very few studies have been made with respect to the type and organization of the factors interacting with the test, and each other, to bring about beneficial washback. Even those few studies are based on pure speculation and not backed by research findings.
   Bailey (1996) suggested that a basic model of washback can be constructed on the basis of a distinction between three different elements in teaching and learning. Bailey referred to these elements as: "participants" (including students, teachers, material developers and publishers), "process" (including actions taken by participants which may eventually lead to learning), and "product" (including the outcome and quality of learning). Hughes moreover maintained that by affecting the perceptions and attitudes of the participants, a test can affect the process and product of learning thus promoting the desired effects. Alderson and Wall (1993, pp. 120-21), on the other hand, in an attempt to understand the washback phenomenon, suggested the following hypotheses, ranging from the most general to the more specific ones:

(1) A test will influence teaching.
(2) A test will influence learning.
(3) A test will influence what teachers teach.
(4) A test will influence how teachers teach.
(5) A test will influence what learners learn.
(6) A test will influence how learners learn.
(7) A test will influence the rate and sequence of teaching.
(8) A test will influence the rate and sequence of learning.
(9) A test will influence the degree and depth of teaching.
(10) A test will influence the degree and depth of learning.
(11) A test will influence attitudes to the content, method, etc of teaching and learning.
(12) Tests that have important consequences will have washback and conversely.
(13) Tests that do not have important consequences will have no washback.
(14) Tests will have washback on all learners and teachers.
(15) Tests will have washback effects for some learners and some teachers, but not for others.
                                                                      
   Alderson and Wall (p.130) believed that the washback hypotheses they put forward can be even more complex, so, they suggested a number of steps when studying the term of washback, the researcher needs to:

1- Clarify the definition and the scope of the term,
2- Specify the nature and predicted effects of the test,
3- Take into account the context in which the test is used as well as the decisions made on its basis,
4- Consider the research findings in the areas of performance and    motivation, as well as, that of educational innovation and change.

                                  
   Hawkey (2004) conducted a study entitled "A Study of washback regarding the impacts of IELTS, especially on candidates and teachers". In this study, the researcher's main focus was to ensure that the test is as valid,effective and ethical as possible.  The instruments were subjected to a range of validating measures including: descriptive analyses (mean, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis, frequency). A total of (572) IELTS candidates from all world regions participated in the study. Findings from the study indicated that, (90%) of the teachers participating in the study agreed that IELTS influenced the content of their lessons, (63%) of those teachers, also, agreed that the exam influenced their methodology. The study concluded that, there appears to be strong IELTS washback on the preparation courses in terms of both content and methodology.
   Another study that intended to test washback within a high-stake test was that of Manjarres (2005). The general objective of the study was to describe the washback effect of the English national examination held at public schools in Colombia. The central question of the study was whether the English Test had any washback effect on teaching English, and whether the exam tested students’ grammatical and linguistic competence. The researchers analyzed the tests students took in 2003 and 2004. The gathered data was then compared with the classroom practices recorded from the observations, (five lessons were observed), an interview with three students, a formal interview with an English language teacher, and an interview with the latter together with another English language teacher of the school. A class examination done in class was also collected and analyzed.  The results of the study showed a positive relationship between the exam and the teachers, that is, English language teachers adjust their strategies in order to meet students’ expectations, this was also noticeable when teachers depended on other materials to perform better in the classroom (i.e. previous test formats). The study also showed that teachers were not familiar with how to develop students’ communicative competence; one of the teachers’ admitted that, listening and speaking skills were not evaluated in the exam. In addition, teachers' main focus was on developing students’ grammatical skills (i.e. gap filling exercises, graph interpretation, and translation of discrete items).
   Ying (2005) in his study investigated the washback effects of the Spoken English Test (SET).  The findings of Ying's study showed that teachers do some times use different approaches and methods when teaching and that they look at the exam as crucial and important and influences students. However, SET teachers seemed to concentrate on communicative competence, they neglected the usage of grammar and translation. The SET exam was set to measure students speaking skills. Textbook evaluation revealed that the influence of SET on the design of the textbook series only occurred at the superficial level, i.e., it influenced the contents and formats of the speaking elements in the textbook series. This indicates that the design of the textbook series received more influence from the teaching syllabus than from SET, which was confirmed by the interview with the textbook writer.  The findings of the study may bring insights to the washback effect of tests on teachers, in terms of, changing their teaching methods when teaching for a high-stakes exam. The findings may also stimulate textbook writers to pay attention to the overall construct of grammatical exercises in the development of English textbooks.
   Another project that focused on an EFL exam held in Greece, was that conducted by Tsagari (2007), titled "Investigating the Washback Effect of a High-Stakes EFL Exam in the Greek context: Participants’ Perceptions, Material Design and Classroom Applications". This research project was an attempt to examine the washback effect of a high-stakes exam on the teaching and learning process that takes place in intermediate level classes leading to that level. The researcher interviewed 15 native and non-native EFL teachers, actively involved in teaching FCE. The results led to detailed analysis of textbook materials using a specially-designed instrument. The analysis of the data showed that the exam did influence the materials teachers use when teaching, but it did not show any washback effects upon teachers teaching methods. Implications from Tsagari's study showed that other factors beyond the exam, such as the exam designers understanding of the underlying principles of the exam and their ability to create an affective exam through the materials used, seemed to play a greater role in determining the influence of the exam rather than the exam itself. The final part of the study looked at the effects of the exam reported by students. The analysis of the data showed that students’ attitudes and feelings as well as their motivational orientations towards learning the language are affected by the exam.
The present study examined the concept of washback as a phenomenon whose significance in language testing theory and practice stems from its relevance to the implications for a shift of interest in the field of testing. According to the researchers' knowledge, no local studies have been conducted in this specific area of investigation, neither on teachers' nor on learners. Factors, mostly due to lack of time, made the researchers tend to investigate the washback effect only in Al-Karak district. The investigation, however undertook the effect, if any, of washback on teachers' instruction, as well as, on their teaching methods.
___In Jordan, the exam is administrated under the supervision of the Ministry of Education where every district administers the GSCE at the same time nationwide. In spite of the large number of public and private universities, a vigorous competition exists; because most students expect to study certain subjects which may improve getting better jobs upon graduation. Some of those who failed to pass the GSCE, have the choice of re-taking the GSCE and try to gain better marks or enter private universities. It's worth mentioning here that, taking the GSCE produces high stress and anxiety for students; especially by the time the examination approaches (Al-Rabee, 2004).
Question formats regarding previous GSCEs in English tend mainly to include: reading short passages taken from the curriculum, multiple choice items, short-answer questions related to subjects on grammar, and a writing test assessing students' linguistic competence. However, the exam entirely neglects measuring students' oral skills (i.e. listening and speaking).  Although a more communicative-oriented curriculum in secondary school English education is being used in classrooms, the GSCE in English held from 1995-2005 had not shifted the focus from testing students' grammar knowledge towards communicative competence (Ahmad, 2003).

Methodology
The purposes of this research were to map the field and to obtain an in-depth understanding of the washback process integrated with a language assessment component. The methodology, therefore, was quantitative measures reflecting a simple one-shot survey design. The research questions provided the framework necessary to uncover the characteristics of teachers' behaviors and methods that relate to washback. These questions were as follows:     
(1) What is the impact of GSCE on English language teachers' method selection?
(2) What are the factors, if any, that tend to affect English language teachers' teaching methods in Al-Karak district?
(3) In light of the answers of the first and second questions, how is GSCE washback manifested? And what forms does it take?
                                               
The population of this study consisted of all second secondary school English language teachers (males and females) who teach English for the second secondary grade in public schools, in the academic year 2006/2007. The study was conducted in Al-Karak districts of: Al-Mazar, Al-Karak, Al-Qaser and Southern Ghour. The researchers obtained the data concerning the population from the Directorates of Education in Al-Karak district. According to the reports of the planning departments in each directory, the total number of English language teachers was estimated to be about (112) second secondary English language teachers distributed in (78) schools, as follows:

Table (1): The number of teachers participating in the study

Directory of Education	Male	Female	Total
Al-Karak	14	21	35
Al-Mazar	15	17	32
Al-Qaser	15	16	31
Southern Ghour	7	7	14
Total	51	61	112

Since the number of the population tended to be relatively small, the researchers decided to include all the English language second secondary teachers. That is the sample tends to be purposive, integrating all members of the population of the study. The participating teachers were all Jordanians having the same socioeconomic environment, where their native language is Arabic. But it must be noticed that 20 teachers were not included in the study;they were chosen as a prior pilot sample.
___To achieve the purpose of the present study, the researchers developed a questionnaire depending mostly on a similar questionnaire derived from a related study conducted by Chen (2002) entitled: "Taiwanese Junior High School English Teachers' perceptions of the Washback Effect of the Basic Competence Test in English". The researchers modified some parts of the questionnaire in light of the objectives of the present study. Chen's questionnaire was chosen because it deals with teachers' selection of teaching methods when instructing or teaching for a high-stakes exam, such as the GSCE. This proposed evaluative questionnaire (see washback Appendix) was directed to secondary school English language teachers in all directories of education in Al-Karak district.
___The objectives of the questionnaire employed in this study were to obtain data regarding two crucial issues relevant directly to the questions of this research.  The first issue has to do with the impact of the GSCE on secondary school English language teachers' selection of teaching methods. The second issue, however, was related to other factors that might affect teachers' selection of methods other than the GSCE. Questions 1 to question 19 were related to how the GSCE influences teachers' selection of methods in terms of four basic domains: activity/time arrangement (questions 1-5), teaching methods (questions 6-10), materials they would use in their classroom (questions 11-14), and the content they would teach (questions 15-19). The other part of the questionnaire, questions 20 to question 37 were about factors commonly associated with the teachers’ method selection when teaching English for second secondary students. Factors commonly associated with how teachers might perceive the impact of public examinations differently were expressed in terms of four major domains: perceived students’ learning attitudes (questions 20-23), teachers’ professionalism in teaching (questions 24-27), teachers' perceived external pressure in teaching (questions 28-31), and teachers' perceived significance of the GSCE  (questions 32-37).
The statements assessing the expected response of the participants were adopted through a five-point Likert scale. On the scale, statements were coded as 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = No Opinion, 4 = Disagree, and 5 = Strongly Disagree. Eight experts in statistics were consulted in identifying the analytical levels of estimating values of mean scores of each item in the instrument (i.e. questionnaire). The experts identified the levels of means as follows:
1. Mean scores (5-3.5) as having strong effect.
2. Mean scores (3.49-2.5) as having moderate effect.
3. Mean scores (2.49-1.5) as having little effect.
4. Mean scores (1.49-1) as being immeasurable. 

___The instrument, which consisted of 42 items employed in the present study (see Appendix), was validated by a jury comprising nine judges, namely, (three university professors, three experienced EFL teachers, and three English language supervisors). The jury members were asked to state their views about the instrument with regard to: item suitability, item relevance, clarity, and language diction. Moreover, the jury was asked to give suggestions with regard to improving the research instrument. After studying the jury's comments, the instrument achieved 94% satisfaction from the respondents. Upon the jury's comments and suggestions, ambiguous and irrelevant items were either omitted or modified. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of (37) items instead of (42).
___On the other hand, the test-retest method was used to compute the reliability of the instrument, the questionnaire was first administrated on 20 second secondary English language teachers' (from outside the sample of the study), and then administrated once again on the same group three weeks later. Spearman's coefficient of correlation formula was used in order to find out the reliability coefficient which was 0.85 for the first part of the study, and 0.88 for the second part. Such ratings were considered to be sufficient for the purpose of applying the questionnaire. However,the present study integrated the following variables:

A) Independent variables:
1. Part one of the questionnaire comprised the following domains:
a) Activity/time arrangement (items 1-5)
b) Teaching methods (items 6-10)
c) Content teachers would teach in the classroom (items 11-14)
d) Materials teachers would use in the classroom (items 15-19)

 2. Part two of the questionnaire comprised the following domains:
a) Students' learning attitudes (items 20-23)
b) Teachers’ professionalism in teaching (items 24-27)
c) Teachers' perceived external pressure in teaching (items 28-31)
d) Teachers' perceived significance of the GSCE (items 32-37)

B) Dependent variable: English language teachers' responses to the questionnaire items.
The teachers' responses to the survey questionnaire were computed and analyzed using the SPSS program. The following statistical measurements were used:
1- Means, standard deviations for each item of the questionnaire.
2- One way ANOVA to compare means scores of different dimensions of each part of the questionnaire.
3- t-test for the differences between part one and part two of the study.

Findings of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the washback effect, if any, of the GSCE on secondary school English language teachers’ in Al-Karak district during the second semester of the academic year 2006/2007. The discussion of the findings, however, is presented in the light of the questions of the present study. That is, findings related to the first question of the study; findings related to the second question of the study; and findings related to the third question of the study.

Findings related to the first question
Question one inquires about the effect of the GSCE on teachers’ teaching methods in terms of four domains, (Activity/time arrangement, Teaching methods, Materials teachers would use in the classroom, and Contents teachers would teach). Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 demonstrate the mean scores, the standard deviations, and the degree of effect it has on these four domains.

Table (2): The Effect of the (Activity/Time Arrangement) Domain.

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. deviation	Item Effect
1- I feel motivated by the GSCE to implement activities that may promote my students' test-taking skills.	15.7	25.8	31.5	27.0	0.00	3.30	1.04	Moderate
2- I feel time allotment in class would be different if the GSCE were cancelled.	38.2	3.4	32.6	15.7	10.1	3.44	1.40	Moderate
3- I spend more time instructing grammar other than communication skills because I think grammar is more likely to be tested on the GSCE.	27.0	39.3	27.0	6.7	0.00	3.87	0.89	Strong
4- I arrange my classroom activities based upon different factors but not just based upon the objectives of the GSCE.	0.00	31.5	27.0	36.0	5.6	3.16	0.94	Moderate
5- I teach test-taking strategies, especially as the GSCE testing dates get closer	56.0	23.0	19.1	0.00	1.1	4.34	0.87	Strong

Table (2) shows that according to secondary school English language teachers' participating in the present study, the (Activity/Time Arrangement) domain tends to affect their teaching when instructing for the second secondary class. Instructing grammar rather than communication skills (item 3) has a rather strong effect on this domain. Teaching test-taking strategies (item 5) has a strong effect as well. This indicates that the GSCE affected teachers' teaching where they tend to be motivated to implement activities to promote their students' skills for the test. This might, also, indicate that teachers felt their main concern was to review all of the content of the textbook rather than conducting activities. That is, time constraints tend to make teachers act in a traditional way in terms of teaching methods. Traditional methods in TEFL invite teachers to emphasize memorization and grammar instruction, which in turn, highlights the learner's linguistic competence, rather than their communicative competence. It is also shown from the above Table that teachers in Al-Karak adopt methods that emphasize grammar; teachers will emphasize students' linguistic knowledge accordingly (item 3). Obviously, since the GSCE tends to test students grammatical abilities rather than their communicative competence.

Table (3): The Effect of the (Teaching Methods) Domain

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. deviation	Item Effect
6- I select my teaching methods in a way that tend to help my students to succeed on the GSCE.	77.5	10.1	10.1	1.1	1.1	4.62	0.80	Strong
7- I select teaching methods that tend to help develop my students’ skills, which are more likely to be tested, on the GSCE.	64.0	21.3	12.4	0.00	2.2	4.45	0.87	Strong
8- I neglect some teaching methods that are un-able to prepare my students for the GSCE.	9.0	4.5	25.8	34.8	25.8	3.64	1.18	Strong
9- My teaching has been influences by the GSCE.	11.2	14.6	22.5	16.9	34.8	2.51	1.39	Moderate
10- I rarely select my teaching methods that tend to help my students succeed on the GSCE.	42.7	16.9	12.4	7.9	20.2	2.46	1.58	Little

Table (3) shows clearly that English language teachers' teaching methods are strongly affected by the GSCE exam. Evidently, the mean scores of items 6,7and 8 tend to be high and have a strong effect, while the mean score of items 9 tended to be moderate. However item 6 (I select my teaching methods in a way that tend to help my students to succeed on the GSCE) got the highest mean which indicates the extent by which EFL teachers are affected by the exam. GSCE teachers felt the need to develop their students' skills so that they can get high scores in the English exam. Item (7) indicated that teachers tend to develop students skills in an attempt to help them pass the GSCE. In other words, the activities teachers use in their classroom were test-oriented, although it must be mentioned here, that teachers concentrated on the grammar-translation method while teaching. This is mainly because the GSCE's question pattern aims at only measuring students' grammatical abilities rather than their communicative ones. 

Table (4): The Effect of the (Materials teachers would use in the classroom) Domain

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. Deviation	Item Effect
11- I use materials in addition to the textbooks if they will help my students succeed on the GSCE.	38.2	28.1	27.0	4.5	2.2	3.96	1.02	Strong
12- I give students worksheets to review questions expected to be on the GSCE.	28.1	18.0	32.6	12.4	9.0	3.44	1.27	Moderate
13- I give my students the Ministry of Education previous tests in order to familiarize them with the GSCE.	38.2	29.2	23.6	7.9	1.1	3.90	1.02	Strong
14- My choice of supplementary materials is influenced by the GSCE.	40.4	15.7	25.8	18.0	0.00	3.79	1.16	Strong

Table (4) displays the means and standard deviations of teachers' selection of additional materials in the classroom which can help students succeed in the GSCE. Items (11 and 13) have strong affects on teachers' methods selection. This reflects teachers' keenness on supplying students with whatever it takes, in terms of supplementary materials that reflect the tests objectives, in order that students can pass the exam. All items in this domain got relatively high means except item (12) which has a moderate effect. This is an indication of the power of the GSCE exam on teachers' teaching options. 

Table (5) The Effect of the (Content Teachers would Teach) Domain.

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. Deviation	Item Effect
15- I skip over certain sections in the textbook because they are less likely to be tested on the GSCE.	6.7	2.2	20.2	20.2	50.6	4.06	1.19	Strong
16- I adjust the sequence of my teaching objectives based on the GSCE.	30.3	16.9	28.1	11.2	13.5	3.39	1.37	Moderate
17- I include some relevant content to help my students perform well on the GSCE.	23.6	33.7	28.1	7.9	6.7	3.60	1.13	Strong
18- I display the objectives of the GSCE through out my course content.	12.4	25.8	37.1	16.9	7.9	3.18	1.10	Moderate
19- I cover every section in the textbook although some sections are unlikely to be tested on the GSCE.	55.1	13.5	15.7	10.1	5.6	1.98	1.27	Little

Table (5) shows that GSCE teachers tended to cover as much content related to the GSCE as possible. This is evident items (15 and 17) that got the highest mean scores. This might indicate that teachers attempt not only to cover all the sections of the textbook whether they are likely to be tested or not, but they also try to include all relevant content which might help their students perform better in the GSCE. The teachers participating in the study, also, attempted to promote their students’ familiarity with the content and test format.

The use of one-way ANOVA clarified part one of the study (how does the GSCE influence teachers' methods' selection). The results showed that the GSCE did in fact influence teachers' teaching methods' in terms of the four domains of: time arrangement, teaching methods, materials teachers would use in the classroom and content teachers would teach. This means that teachers tended to change and modify their teaching methods constantly. This may be attributed to the fact stated earlier that states that GSCE is very crucial for both the students and teachers .According to Table (7),the GSCE has a significant effect (α ≤ 0.05) in terms of the three domains namely: time arrangement, teaching methods, and content. While it was shown that the material domain did not have any significant effect on teachers' methods selection. This may be explained through GSCE teachers concern of the exam itself, rather than the overall development of students' levels in English.

Table (6): One way ANOVA analysis of the first part of the study

Domain		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Time	Between Groups Within Groups Total	24.0 3.74 27.7	66 22 88	.364 .170	2.14	.024
Method	Between Groups Within Groups Total	13.0 .883 13.9	66 22 88	.198 .040	4.92	.000
Material	Between Groups Within Groups Total	29.1 6.64 35.7	66 22 88	.44 .30	1.46	.162
Content	Between Groups Within Groups Total	13.1 .293 13.4	66 22 88	.19 .01	14.9	.000

Findings related to the Second question
Question two inquired about the effect of other factors, if any, on teachers teaching methods in terms of four domains: students' learning attitudes, teachers’ professionalism in teaching, teachers' perceived external pressure in teaching, and teachers' perceived importance of the GSCE. Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 demonstrate the means, the standard deviations and the effect of every domain on teachers' selection of teaching methods.

Table (7): The Effect of the (students' learning attitudes) Domain.

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. deviation	Item Effect
20-I teach, whatever I think is important to teach, no matter whether my students like it or not.	2.2	10.1	13.5	32.6	41.6	1.99	1.08	Little
21- I spend less time on certain sections of the textbooks because my students are less interested in them.	18.0	15.7	18.0	33.7	14.6	3.11	1.34	Moderate
22- I often teach what will be tested because my students expect me to do so.	4.5	43.8	9.0	21.3	21.3	3.21	1.30	Moderate
23- My teaching tends to be influenced by students' learning attitudes	3.4	10.1	9.0	33.7	43.8	1.96	1.12	Little

Table (7) explains the relationship between teachers' learning attitudes and teachers’ teaching methods when instructing for the GSCE, which was shown to be low. This is evident from item (23) which asked teachers if their students' attitudes affected their teaching. Accordingly, this item got the lowest mean score(1.96) which means that teachers don’t care much about students' attitudes and expectations This might also reflects how traditional GSCE teachers tend to be, where their teaching methods are mainly structured so much to serve the purpose of the exam without any regard to learners attitudes or feelings. This might indicate that teachers are familiar with the type of questions that might be on the exam paper, while students aren’t, and that they are able to apply similar questions in class to help students be familiar with different types of questions that might be in the exam.

Table (8): The Effect of the Teachers’ Professionalism in Teaching Domain

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. deviation	Item Effect
24- I expect my students to perform well on the GSCE.	16.9	38.2	40.4	3.4	1.1	3.66	.84	Strong
25- I feel embarrassed if my students perform less well on the GSCE than other students taught by my colleagues.	37.1	28.1	7.9	14.6	12.4	2.37	1.43	Little
26- I get feedback on my teaching from the GSCE.	29.2	25.8	32.6	1.1	11.2	3.61	1.24	Strong
27- My personality influences my selection of teaching methods.	16.9	37.1	15.7	18.0	12.4	2.72	1.29	Moderate

Table (8) introduces the effect of teachers’ perspectives of professionalism in teaching on teachers' teaching methods, which was considered moderate. From the above Table; it is clear that teacher's personality did not influence their teaching methods. That is, (item 25) indicates that GSCE teachers' tended not to be influenced or embarrassed if other students (taught by other colleagues) got higher grades in the GSCE. On the other hand, teachers expected their students to pass the exam and get important feedback on their teaching (item 26). Moreover, GSCE teachers' expressed that they had strong faith in their students' ability to pass the exam (item 24). That is, they indicate strong confidence regarding the way they taught and the methods they used, regardless to whether it is appropriate or not.
___Table (9) illustrates questions related to the amount of pressure teachers' face from different external sources. These include: schools principle, other teachers and students' parents. The data indicated that neither felt any pressure from their school principle (item 28) nor even from students parents (item 30).  Yet, GSCE teachers' felt some pressure from their colleagues (item 29). This might mean that the teachers in light of such peer pressure might consider improving their teaching methods especially when it comes to comparing the results of those teachers to the improving results of a colleague. Again, the test's control of teachers' method selection is so evident, i.e., if they change a certain method it must be relevant to the test. In other words teachers who perceived the GSCE as an important high-stakes test were more likely to perceive pressure from external forces when teaching.

Table (9): The Effect of the (teachers' perceived external pressure in teaching) Domain

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. deviation	Item Effect
28- I feel pressure from my school principal to improve my students' test scores.	43.8	31.5	9.0	13.5	2.2	1.99	1.13	Little
29- I feel pressure from other teachers to improve my students' test scores.	18.0	19.1	16.9	33.7	12.4	3.03	1.33	Moderate
30- I feel pressure from student' parents to improve my students’ test scores.	46.1	27.0	4.5	16.9	5.6	2.09	1.30	Moderate
31- My school's policy influences my selection of teaching methods.	42.7	33.7	4.5	14.6	4.5	2.04	1.21	Little

Table (10) shows the level of the teachers’ perceived importance of the GSCE as moderate and to some extent positive. (Item 32) has the highest mean score which indicates that teachers realize the significance of the GSCE results and that these test results are used to make crucial decisions that tremendously influence students' lives and future careers. In contrast, (item 33) has the lowest mean score, indicating that, teachers' will not benefit from their students' scores in GSCE. Clearly, this might affect teachers in terms of not improving the teaching strategies they apply in class mainly because of the lack of encouragement they get, whether this encouragement means a salary raise or raising his teaching spirit.  

Table (10): The Effect of the teachers' perceived importance of the GSCE Domain.

Item	S.A %	A %	N.O %	D %	S.D %	Mean	Std. deviation	Item Effect
32- I regard the GSCE as a test, which will influence students' future career.	28.1	33.7	21.3	3.4	13.5	3.60	1.30	Strong
33- Students’ GSCE score result will have significant sanctions to most teachers.	49.4	29.2	7.9	11.2	2.2	1.88	1.11	Little
34- The GSCE is a fair test to students.	1.1	12.4	12.4	32.6	41.6	1.99	1.07	Little
35-The GSCE is able to test my students' language ability.	5.6	25.8	10.1	27.0	31.5	2.40	1.32	Moderate
36-The GSCE provides little feedback about students’ learning.	20.2	33.7	5.6	22.5	18.0	2.47	1.32	Moderate
37- The GSCE has changed my school's language teaching policy.	30.3	23.6	11.2	22.5	12.4	2.63	1.43	Moderate

Table (11) summarizes the effect of the second part of the study related to how other possible and related factors might influence teachers' method selection in terms of the four domains of: students' learning attitudes, teachers’ professionalism in teaching, teachers' perceived external pressure while teaching, and teachers' perceived importance of the GSCE. It was shown through the use of one-way ANOVA that three out of four domains did in fact influence teachers' methods' selection: students learning attitudes, proficiency, and importance, while the (pressure) domain did not influence teachers' methods' selection. This implies, again, teachers' tendency to be traditional. Traditional teachers are those teachers whose teaching emerges from contextual factors other than that of the students' needs, feelings and attitudes.

Table (11): One way ANOVA analysis of the Second part of the Study

Domain		Sum of Squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Attitudes	Between Groups Within Groups Total	30.5 8.06 38.6	51 37 88	.600 .218	2.75	.001
Proficiency	Between Groups Within Groups Total	25.7 10.3 36.1	51 37 88	.506 .280	1.80	.031
Pressure	Between Groups Within Groups Total	20.6 13.5 34.2	51 37 88	.40 .36	1.10	.383
Importance	Between Groups Within Groups Total	22.9 6.0 29.0	51 37 88	.45 .16	2.74	.001

Findings related to the Third question
Findings related to question three and through using a t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between part one and part two of the study.

Table (12): Comparison between the 1st question and the 2nd question of the study

	Effect	Mean	Std. Deviation	T-Value	df	Sig.
The GSCE influences the teaching methods Selection	Strong	3.78	0.40	*88.53	88	0.000
Other factors influences the teaching methods selection	Strong	2.63	0.36	*68.43	88	0.000

As can be seen from Table (12) the mean scores of the first part of the study (the GSCE influences the teaching methods selection) was estimated to be (3.78), while the mean score of the second part of the study (other factors influence the teaching methods selection) was estimated to be (2.63). Such a difference in washback effect could be attributed to the crucial role the GSCE plays in the educational system in Jordan. The exam has a critical effect on both teachers and learners and especially teachers. Teachers are responsible for improving students' test scores, which in turn, pushes them to select the best teaching methods to help their students pass the GSCE.

Discussion of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
The present study was an attempt to analyze the washback effect on secondary schools English language teachers’ teaching methods. It also aimed at identifying other factors that might affect the teachers' selection of methods while instructing for the GSCE. Moreover, this study tried to identify how washback was manifested in secondary school English classrooms, and highlighted the forms washback takes in the Al-Karak context.

Discussion of the findings related to the first question
To review, question one inquired about the impact of GSCE on English language teachers' method selection. The findings showed that most of the teachers who answered the questionnaire felt that the GSCE influenced and affected their selection of teaching methods because English language at Jordanian secondary schools is driven by measurement, and also, because English language teachers in Jordan are regarded as the primary source of English language learning. This created pressure on such teachers which made them keen on developing their students' linguistic competence to develop their students' language abilities. The teachers pointed out that they have to change and modify their teaching methods in order to meet the testing objectives of the GSCE.
___Teachers reported that the time given to teach was not enough and that their instruction was constrained by time. Teachers' also reported that if they were given more time they would be able to make use of other materials and contents to help students gain better marks on the test. The teaching process depended on the curriculum, and was regarded as a teaching guide directing teachers in what to teach and how to help their students prepare for the GSCE. The instructional time teachers were given was just sufficient to cover the curriculum. Although the teachers wanted to make use of other related material to familiarize their students with the format of the GSCE, no additional time was available for them to do that. However, the study reported when teachers might sometimes have extra time to supplement textbook-based learning such as quizzes and reviews, such time was dedicated to promoting their students familiarity with the content and test format of the GSCE. The present study reflected time constraints regarding the amount of time given to instruct for a high-stakes exam, which in turn, influenced their teaching methods. These results, however, are similar to those of Read (1999), Chen (2002), Manjarres (2005). They all pointed out that time is significant for teachers; for it tends to affect teachers choice of methodology.
___The study, also, revealed that teachers still depended on the traditional method of teaching English, which is based on improving students' translation and grammatical abilities rather than improving their overall communicative abilities (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing). This might be due to the fact that the GSCE does not mainly focus on examining these skills.Wall and Alderson (1996) in this regard tried to distinguish the impact of positive washback and negative washback by assuming that teachers would selectively use the efficient means such as those suggested by Teachers' Guides to develop their students' skills that would be assessed in the examinations if the impact of public examinations was positive. Under negative washback, Wall and Alderson (1996) stated that: "teachers would use whatever methodology they felt most expedient to help them to prepare their students for the examination” (p. 200).
___Thus, teachers in the future should try to shift from concentrating only on developing students' grammatical competence toward promoting students' overall communicative competence. As for the teaching methods teachers use in class, findings of the present study indicated that teachers modified their teaching methods in order to meet the objectives of the exam on the one hand, and in order to improve students' scores on the other hand.    
   Teachers in their classes focused on promoting students reading and writing skills, and they did not integrate any listening or speaking skills. The reason for this, as mentioned before, was that the exam does not include any spoken communicative tasks and questions. We agree with (Andrews 1994; Hawkey, 2004) who pointed out that high-stakes exams led teachers to use different teaching methods in order to engage their students in certain exam tasks. Yet the findings of the present study disagree with those of Cheng (1997) where she noted changes in terms of teaching content, but she did not observe any changes in teaching methods teachers use in the classroom. She commented that the revised exam "is likely to change the practice for the exam, but not the examination itself" (p. 52).
___The term (materials) was used in this study to refer to exam-related textbooks and past papers, while the term (content) was used to refer to the sections and parts of the official English curriculum published by the Ministry of Education in Jordan. The findings of the present study highlighted teachers' use of supplementary materials that would help their students to be prepared for the GSCE. The findings, also, revealed that all teachers agreed that they tried to cover specific sections of the textbook which have relevant content that might help students perform well in the GSCE. It must be noted in this regard that Jordanian textbooks especially the official English curriculum needs to be more focused on developing students' communicative abilities (i.e. interpretation, expression, and negotiation) rather than the presentation of grammatical rules and forms.    
___Recent literature discussed washback on materials in terms of material production, the use of materials, students and teachers views of exam materials and the content of materials but no studies relevant to teaching methods. Studies conducted by Cheng (2001) as well as Hayes and Read (2004) who agreed that teachers tend to select certain materials and contents to help students familiarize with test and the questions expected to be on the test. Lam (1999) added that "teachers believe that the best way to prepare students for an exam is by doing past papers" (p: 91). Most of the related literature indicated that when teaching towards high-stakes exams teachers tend to use different kinds of exam related materials to help their students' familiarize with the exam. The findings of the present study were in harmony with some of the hypotheses of both Alderson and Wall (1993) mentioned earlier. Here are some hypotheses, stated earlier, that were so true for the present research:
1) A test will influence teaching.
2) A test will influence what teachers teach.
3) Tests that have important consequences will have washback.
4) Tests will have washback on teachers and learners.

Discussion of the findings related to the second question
Many studies have pointed out that public examinations might affect some aspects of teaching while not affecting others (Chen 2002; Cheng et al,2004), or they might affect some teachers in different ways than others (Alderson and Hamp-Lyons, 1996). Findings obtained from this study report a certain degree of washback effect on Jordanian secondary school English language teachers as a result of the GSCE.
The finding of the second question (What are the factors, if any, that tend to influence English language teachers’ teaching methods in Al-Karak district?) indicate that, apparently, teachers were not affected by students' learning attitudes when instructing for the GSCE,in terms of, meeting their students’ expectations when it comes to teaching what will be tested. Recent literature indicated that tests were commonly assumed to bring out some changes in motivation and, thus, in behavior associated with teaching and learning. ___Learners, particularly those with high orientation toward success or towards avoidance of failure in the public examination, would expect their teacher to cover what would be tested (Barrette, 2004). The finding of the present study regarding the effect of students' learning attitudes on teachers’ methods were not similar to those of Wall and Alderson (1993), Caine, (2005), who indicated that teachers are influenced by students learning attitudes. It's fair to say in this regard, if teachers perceived that their students would expect them to cover what would be tested in the GSCE or if students have higher expectations on their test performance, teachers would perceive more impact of the GSCE on their choice of teaching methods as well as their instruction.
___The study also revealed that teachers are not affected by their personality in terms of the methods they select, according to table 8; teachers admitted that they will not feel embarrassed if students taught by other colleges got better marks in the exam than their own students. Findings from the present study, also, indicated that a significant relationship existed between teachers' awareness of the importance of the GSCE on students' lives together with its influence on their choice of teaching methods. Table 10 indicated that teachers are actually worried about how their students will perform in the exam. Cheng (2003, p.296), in her study found that some teachers would feel guilty if they did not familiarize their students with the test formats. Cheng et al (2004) pointed out when teachers were more aware of the formats, skills and/or contents that will be tested in public exams, their teaching methods as well as their instruction were more likely to be influenced by the public exams. The results derived from the present study were in accordance with this literature.

Discussion of the findings related to the third question
The findings related to the third question clearly indicated that the GSCE in terms of three domains (activity/time arrangement, the content teachers would teach, and teaching methods) affected teachers' teaching methods. The fourth domain (the materials teachers would use in their classroom) did not have any significant effect on teachers' selection of methods. Other factors mentioned in this study also affected teachers’ methods selection, except the ‘teachers’ perceived external pressure in teaching’ domain, which had no affect on teachers. The findings regarding the third question clearly showed that there were statistically significant differences between the two parts of the study in terms of their effect on the methods teachers use in the classroom. It is obvious from Table 12 that the GSCE affected the teachers' method selection with a relatively high mean score of (3.78).
___Cheng (2001) argued that the relationship between a test and its impact, positive or negative, might not be as simple as that at first glance. The quality of washback might be independent of the quality of the test. A poor test can generate a beneficial effect if it makes teachers and students do good things that they would not otherwise do, such as, preparing lessons more thoroughly, paying attention to the lesson, and taking the subject being tested more seriously. Similarly, Tsagari (2007) indicated that a poor test might be associated with positive effects and a good test with negative effects due to educational factors other than the quality of the test.
___According to the present study, two types of washback effect have appeared after analyzing the data. The first part of the study regarding how the GSCE in English affects teachers’ methods appeared to be positive or beneficial. That is, the GSCE in fact, brought a positive and powerful impact to the classroom, in the sense that, it affected English language teachers’ selection of teaching methods, in terms of, providing students with feedback, and making sure to supplement the students' book with activities that qualify them to undertake the test. If the effects of public examinations are beneficial, such effects will encourage the whole range of desired changes mentioned before, as associated with “positive washback.” Public examinations should be educationally beneficial when they can affect the teaching and learning process. Hughes (2003) mentioned that positive washback is clearly observed when teachers try to improve and develop the skills that the test is designed to measure. Accordingly, public examinations should be educationally beneficial when they can reinforce behavior and attitudes of the involved parties, such as, teachers and students in order to carry out changes that enhance and reward teaching and learning results.
___The other type of washback as observed in the current study concerning other factors that might affect teachers’ method selection, was that of harmful washback. Generally speaking, harmful washback appears when it does not affect the core of the teaching and learning process. For example, teachers’ responses showed that their personality did not affect their teaching methods nor the techniques they used, in the sense that, they have harmful attitudes towards the exam and working toward its objectives. Another harmful aspect was that teachers adapted traditional teaching methods, in terms of developing students' grammatical and translation skills at the expense of their overall communicative skills. This aspect was considered to be harmful, because students were not taught by teaching methods which are supposed to develop their overall language skills.

Conclusion
Washback tends to be a challenging phenomenon to research and measure. This study showed that GSCE affects teachers' selection of teaching methods. This effect on teaching methods is due to the significance of the exam on students and also on teachers. As washback studies have indicated, tests often provide teachers with reasons for activities and techniques that qualify students to perform well in the test.
This study also implied that teachers' selection of methods was also affected by other factors mentioned earlier which created what is called harmful washback. For example, teachers were slightly affected by pressure from different sources. They were also affected by their students' expectations and attitudes. This implies that teachers' main focus was on preparing their students' for the exam, in whatever way they think is efficient, and only hope that they get good marks in the exam. 
___At the end of this section, it must be mentioned that oral proficiency when teaching English in Jordan must be a demand; teachers should concentrate on developing students speaking and listening abilities, and this of course can't be accomplished without the understanding of teachers and test designers that English is considered to be a global language and it ought to be taught using an oral-based methodology. English language teachers in Jordan should focus on using English actively in the classroom rather than using analytical procedures that focus on explaining grammatical rules, and they ought to encourage direct and spontaneous use of the foreign language in their classrooms. In brief, English should be taught through hearing and speaking the language first, and then, understanding its grammatical rules.

Recommendations
Based on the findings reported in this study, the following recommendations are made for different educational parties.

1. Provide Teachers with Professional Development Opportunities
The Ministry of Education in Jordan should provide teachers with more training on how to use test data to critique and improve their instruction. These goals can be achieved through the coordination of universities, which provide most pre-service and teacher education programs. Without professional development aimed at understanding and using test data, teachers might not know how to use this information to improve their instruction.

2. Change Teacher Monitoring and Evaluation Policy
Evaluation of teachers may require a more systematic approach to monitoring and evaluating teacher performance. However, school administrators should work with teachers to help them identify their instructional weaknesses. If not, this may lead teachers simply to teach to improve test scores instead of students' learning.

3. Develop the GSCE
All teachers throughout the study claimed that the exam didn’t measure students' communicative abilities, especially in speaking and listening. For effective language learning entails an integration of four language skills. The Ministry of Education in this regard should try to include such tasks over the years in order to help students be better prepared for their future carriers and higher studies.

References
Ahmad, M. (2003). Professional difficulties facing secondary school English language teachers and its effect in classroom performance, MA Thesis, Al-Najah National University, Palestine. 

Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13, 280–297.

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

Al-Rabee, S.A. (2004). A Comparative study of the cooperative technique and the traditional technique in teaching writing to Jordanian first and second secondary grade students. MA thesis, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

Andrews, S. (1994). The washback effect of examinations: Its impact upon curriculum innovation in English language teaching. Curriculum Forum (1), 44-58.

Andrews, S., Fullilove, J. & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback – a case  study. System, 30, 207-223.

Bailey, D.M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 257-279.

Bani-Hani, N. A. (1992). Problems of teaching English as a foreign language in Jordanian secondary schools as perceived by teachers. M.A Thesis, Yarmouk University.

Barrette, C. (2004). An analysis of foreign language achievement test drafts. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 58-70.

Caine, N. (2005). EFL Examination Washback in Japan: investigating the effect of oral assessment on teaching and learning. MA thesis. England: The University of Manchester.

Chen, L. M. (2002). Taiwanese junior high school English teachers' perceptions of the washback effect of the basic competence test in English. PHD thesis, Ohio State University.

Cheng, L. (1997). Does Washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education, 11(1), 38-54.

Cheng, L. (2001). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. Curriculum Forum, 10(2), 17–32.

Cheng, L. (2003). Looking at the impact of a public examination change on secondary classroom teaching: A Hong Kong case study. Journal of Classroom Interaction 38(1), 1-10.

Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y. & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Mahwah, N.J.: London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hawkey, R. (2004). An IELTS impact study: Implementation and some early findings. Research Notes, 15. Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL.

Hayes, B., & Read, J. (2004). IELTS test preparation in New Zealand: Preparing students for the IELTS academic module. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 97-112). Malwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000.Unpublished MA thesis, England: University of Reading.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. (2nd Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lam, H. P. (1999). Methodology washback- an insider's view. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Manjarres, N.B. (2005). Washback of the foreign language tests of the state examination in Colombia: A case study. University of Arizona.

Mcewen, N. (1995a). Educational accountability in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Education. 20, 27-44.

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

Read, J. (1999). The policy context of English testing for immigrants. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tsukuba, Japan.

Shohamy, E. (1992). Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing model for assessing foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal 76(4),513-521.

Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Are they fair? Language Testing, 14, 340–349.

Tsagari, D. (2007). Investigating the Washback effect of the FCE examination (Cambridge/ESOL) in Greece. Greece ,UCLES.

Wall, D., & Alderson, J. C. (1996). Examining washback: The Sri Lanka impact study. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 194–221). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Ying, Y. (2005). Washback effects of the spoken English test on textbook content". University of China publications  

APPENDIX: washback questionnaire