INVESTIGATING ‘EXCESSIVE
ASSISTANCE’, PLAGIARISM AND
WASHBACK IN EAP WRITING
Carolyn Westbrook
Senior Lecturer in EFL
Southampton Solent University, UK
Outline






Introduction
Key terms
The importance of washback
Rationale for the project
The research project
Summary and conclusions
Introduction … or: Who am I and
why am I here?
?
ProSET
Key terms … or: What is she
talking about?
 What do you understand by these
terms?
 ‘excessive assistance’
 ‘plagiarism’
 ‘washback’
Ahaa … that’s what she means! (1)
 ‘Excessive assistance’ is when a
student is helped with an assessed
task by a peer or family member and
this help is unidentifiable and
undeclared.
Ahaa … that’s what she means! (2)
 ‘Plagiarism’ is when a student uses
the words or ideas of someone else
without acknowledging them in their
work.
 ‘Washback’ is ‘the effect of testing
on teaching and learning’ (Hughes,
1989: 1)
The importance of washback
 Why do we care about washback?
 Importance for test validation:
 Socio-cognitive framework for test
validation (Weir, 2005)
 Qualities of test usefulness
(Bachman & Palmer, 1996)
A socio-cognitive framework for
test validation (Weir, 2005)
Test-taker characteristics
Context validity
Theory-based validity
Response
Scoring validity
Score / grade
Consequential validity
Criterion-related validity
Qualities of test usefulness
(Bachman & Palmer, 1996)
 Construct Validity
 Reliability
 Impact
 Practicality
 Authenticity
 Interactiveness
Impact – definition
Impact: The influence a test has on
society and educational
systems and … the individuals
within those systems
(Bachman & Palmer, 1996: 19-35)
Who does a test impact on?
Employers
How do we investigate washback?
‘… test developers … must actually
investigate the specific areas (such as
content of teaching, teaching methodology,
ways of assessing achievement), direction
(positive, negative), and extent of the
presumed impact.’
(Wall and Alderson, 1993, in Bachman & Palmer,
1996: 30-31)
The problem of ‘excessive
assistance’
 ‘Excessive assistance’ manifests itself as:
 ‘help’ from friends
 use of Google Translate to translate
books or texts for an assignment
 Problem: Turnitin does not detect Google
Translate (or books, unless they have
previously been entered in to the database
Why do students plagiarise?
 Intentional
 ‘Strategic approach to higher education, wanting …
a degree while needing employment’ (Moon, 1999)
 ‘Weaker’ students want to ‘avoid failure’ (Wilhoit,
1994, in Underwood and Szabo, 2004:181)
 Unintentional
 Lack of understanding (Bamford and Sergiou,
2005)
 Lack of time to include references (Gillett, 2011)
Previous writing task - example
The same student’s in-class test
The People imProvements the health in This life and they helPing
together If the government looking to the new life for this help.
The health in this life it’ss important for etch one to get the PeoPle
save in the life, i shoud take health and tell any one hwo is did’nt
do teh health for this life. In my oPinion i shoud tell for the
governments of richer nations if they helping Poorer nations in
such areas that i thik dis agree with this think. If governments
looking for the help to PeoPle i agree with the Pest think and the
PeoPle do good think for governments I would like but every one
in hes work as he get or he have abuot the scalar sheP from when
he had befor However the PeoPle help government in the life of
health.
Previous assessed writing tasks
 Process essay done outside of
class with feedback tutorials
 Based on undergraduate study
field
 Length 400-900 words (Sabanci);
1500 words (Solent)
 Paraphrasing and in-text citations
requisites of the task
Process essay: positive washback
 Students researched the topic
to find relevant information
 Some students successfully
managed to paraphrase and
use correct in-text citation
 Those who attended tutorials
got feedback on essay
Process essay: negative washback
 In particular, students:
 were reluctant to read texts carefully
 did not develop appropriate paraphrasing or intext citation skills
 did not develop necessary linguistic skills (esp.
competence in key vocabulary and lexicogrammatical structures)
 Inability to perform the task despite perception that
they were doing it
 High failure / Academic Misconduct rate
Our project – the context
 Sabanci University
 English-medium university
 Foundation Development Year –
250-300 students
 Variety of course-based and exambased assessments
 Exit level: approx. B2
Our project – the context
 Southampton Solent University
 British university
 International Foundation Year –
60-100 students
 Variety of course-based and
exam-based assessments
 Exit level: approx. B2
The Open Book Exam
 4 practice texts (approx. 20 pages) and
text activity pack as well as a practice
essay task (not assessed) on a different
topic to that of the exam
 4 new texts (approx. 20 pages) 4 weeks
before the exam and text activity pack –
worked on in and outside of class
Evaluation of the Open Book Exam
Washback on learning - 1
 Lecturers:
 changed the teaching from mainly
tutorial classes to a mixture of working
on the text packs and giving feedback
on the practice essay
 worked in more depth on reading skills
 gave feedback on practice essays but
no marks
Washback on learning - 2
Time spent on practice texts and exam texts
40%
35%
n=54
30%
25%
20%
Practice texts
15%
Exam text pack
10%
5%
0%
Less than 2
hours
2-6 hours
8-12 hours
12-16 hours
Over 16
hours
Washback on learning - 3
Test preparation
What did you do to prepare for the test?
n=37
21%
General writing
practice - grammar,
linking words, essay
writing, etc.
Further
reading/research
49%
30%
Further interaction
with the text pack
Washback on learning - 4
Predicting the essay question
How well did you predict the question?
n=52
13%
25%
14%
48%
Very well - I predicted
the question almost
exactly
Quite well - I had
predicted some parts
of the question
Not very well at all - I
didn't predict any parts
of the question
I didn't try to predict
the question
Washback on learning - 5
 It’s not all positive …
 Negative washback:
 Students do not need to practise
research skills as all texts are
provided
 Open Book Exam and preparation
encourage careful reading but not
expeditious reading
Reducing excessive assistance
 Preparation – may have had help before
the exam - handwriting check:
 Sabanci: 94/100 matched
 Solent: 53/54 matched (but 11:
no/very few notes)
 Exam room – no chance of excessive
assistance
Reducing plagiarism - 1
 Practice essay:
 113
submissions
(49 students)
 Mean
Similarity
Index: 33%
Reducing plagiarism - 2
 Exam:
 54 students
 Mean Similarity Index: 9.6%
 Practice essay and exam:
 both plagiarism and correct
referencing
 evidence of learning about plagiarism
Summary
Positive AND negative washback on learning:
 learning about plagiarism;
 increased engagement with texts →
extended reading;
 decrease in plagiarism between practice
essay and exam;
 decrease in excessive assistance

 /  predicting essay question;
 ss do not practice research skills;
 careful reading but not expeditious reading;
The moral of the story is …
… don’t assume that all changes
will always be for the better.
Questions or comments?
Carolyn.westbrook@solent.ac.uk