Aspects of the Impact of Language Tests on Students’ Lifeworld: An Analysis of the Iranian B.A. University Entrance Exam Based on Habermas’s Social Theory


1 Associate Professor, University of Shiraz

2 Lecturer, Alzahra Farhangian University of Zanjan


Testing has been so intrinsically bound to today’s modern life whose foregone consequences are often taken for granted and is accepted widely as unavoidable side effects or sometimes even desired effects of an inevitable social event. The aim of this study is to investigate the aspects of the impact of Iranian B.A. University Entrance Exam on the lifeworld of the students who are about to take it. To this end, the analysis was conducted using Habermas’s Social Theory. There were 349 fourth-grade students participating in the study from four different provinces including Zanjan, Alborz, Mazandaran and Shiraz. The data was gathered using a researcher-made questionnaire and a semi-structured interview with 10 students as well as classroom observation in two subsequent years qualitative and quantitative analyses of data revealed that the exam is regarded as an inevitable social practice by the participants whose life world is exploited and manipulated by the exam as a part of the system. The pressure for result-based accountability placed upon the test takers, on the other hand, leads to creation of some specific norms, provides system control tools, enhances instrumental rationality and establishes the social order of its own. The implications for language testing and teaching are discussed.


Article Title [Persian]

جنبه های تاثیر تست های زبان انگلیسی بر زیست جهان دانش آموزان: تحلیل آزمون ورودی دانشگاهها( کنکور سراسری) بر مبنای تئوری اجتماعی هابرماس

Authors [Persian]

  • علی احمدی 1
  • سید عباس موسوی 2
Abstract [Persian]

آزمون امروزه به قدری با زندگی مدرن گره خورده که عواقب محتوم آن مسلم انگاشته شده و به صورت گسترده ای به مثابه ی عارضه ی اجتناب ناپذیریا بعضی وقتها حتی تاثیر مطلوب یک رویداد اجتماعی ناگزیر پذیرفته شده است. هدف این مطالعه بررسی جنبه های تاثیر آزمون ورودی دانشگاه سراسری ایران (کنکور سراسری) بر زیست جهان دانش آموزانی است که در آستانه این آزمون هستند. بدین منظور تجزیه تحلیل با استفاده از تئوری اجتماعی هابرماس انجام شد. 349 دانش آموز سال چهارم از چهار استان زنجان، البرز، مازندران و شیراز در این مطالعه شرکت کردند. داده ها بر اساس  پرسشنامه محقق ساخته و مصاحبه نیمه ساختاری و نیز مشاهده کلاسهای درس در دو سال متوالی گرد آوری شدند. تجزیه و تحلیل کمی و کیفی داده ها نشان داد که مشارکت کنندگان -که زیست جهان آنها توسط این آزمون به مثابه بخشی از سیستم، استثمار می شود- این آزمون را یک عمل اجتماعی ناگزیر می پندارند. از طرف دیگرفشار برای مسئولیت پذیری نتیجه محور که بر روی آزمون دهندگان وجود دارد منجر به ایجاد یک سری هنجارهای خاص می شود ابزارهای کنترلی سیستم را فراهم می کند، عقلانیت ابزاری را تقویت می کند و نظم اجتماعی مرتبط با خود را ایجاد می کند. کاربردهای این تحقیق برای آزمون سازی و آموزش زبان به بحث گذاشته شده است.

Keywords [Persian]

  • عواقب تست ها
  • زیست جهان
  • هابرماس
  • اعتبار
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied linguistics14(2), 115-129.

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Language Teaching, 45, 234-249.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth.

Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy30(1), 39-62.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language testing, 17(1), 1-42.

Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(2), 1-34.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Gulek, C. (2010) Preparing for high-stakes testing, Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 42-50.

Cheng, L. (1998). Impact of a public English examination change on students’ perceptions and attitudes toward their English learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 279-301.

Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, L. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing25(1), 15-37.

Cheng, L. (2014). Consequences, impact, and washback: The companion to language assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cook, D. (2004). Adorno, Habermas and the search for a rational society. New York: Routledge.

Davies, A. (1997a). Australian immigrant gatekeeping through English language tests: How important is proficiency? In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio, & S. Luoma (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment (pp. 71–84). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä and University of Tampere.

Davies, A. (1997b). Demands of being professional in language testing. Language Testing, 14(3), 328–339.

Davies, A. (1997c). Introduction: The limits of ethics in language testing. Language Testing, 14(3), 235–241.

Davies, A. (2004a). Introduction: Language testing and the Golden Rule. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 97–107.

Davies, A. (2004b). The ethics of language assessment [Special issue]. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 2-3

Davies, A. (2010). Test fairness: A response. Language Testing, 27,171–176.

Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas: The key concepts. London: Routledge.

Finlayson, J. G. (2005). Habermas: A very short introduction (Vol. 125). Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.  London: Penguin Books.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. London: Pantheon.

Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational researcher18(9), 27-32.

Habermas, J. (1976). On the pragmatics of communication. Mit Press, Cambridge: Massachusetts.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Volume 2) lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason, trans.  Cambridge: Polity.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action, trans. Christian Lenhardt, and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.

Habermas, J. (1979/1998). On the Pragmatics of communication. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: USA.

Habermas, J. (2001). On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hornberger, N. (1994). Ethnography. TESOL quarterly28(4), 688-690.

Huhta, A., Kalaja, P., & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. (2006). Discursive construction of a high-stakes test: The many faces of a test-taker. Language Testing23(3), 326-350.

Huttunen, R., & Murphy, M. (2012). Discourse and recognition as normative grounds for radical pedagogy: Habermasian and Honnethian ethics in the context of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(2), 137-152.

ITLA codes of Ethic (2000). Retrieved February 14, 2013 from World Wide Web:

Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Zeisel, H. (1931/2003). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed community. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research1(2), 112-133.

Kamyab, S., (2009). Junior colleges in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In R. L. Raby, & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), Community college models, VI (pp. 561-568). London: Springer.

Kane, M. (2004). Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2(3), 135-170.

Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 16–64). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kane, M. (2010). Validity and fairness. Language Testing, 27(2), 177–182.

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73.

Khoii, R. (1998). A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the English subtests of entrance examinations of universities using the Rasch model. Doctoral Dissertation. Islamic Azad University: Science & Research campus, Tehran.

Koch, M. J., & DeLuca, C. (2012). Rethinking validation in complex high-stakes assessment contexts. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice19(1), 99-116.

Kompridis, N. (2011). Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. 

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Kunnan, A. J. (2000a). Fairness and justice for all. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kunnan, A. J. (2000b). Fairness and validation in language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kunnan, A. J. (2004). Test fairness. In M. Milanovic, & C. Weir (Eds.), European year of languages conference papers, Barcelona (pp. 27–48). Cambridg: Cambridge University Press.

Kunnan, A. J. (2009). Testing for citizenship: The U.S. Naturalization Test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 89–97.

Kunnan, A. J. (2010). Test fairness and Toulmin’s argument structure. Language Testing27(2), 183-189.

Lee, C. J. G. (2014). Systemic colonization of the educational lifeworld: An example in literacy education. Educational Philosophy and Theory46(1), 87-99.

Lehman, G. (2001). Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate social and environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting12(6), 713-733.

Lynch, B. K. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language testing18(4), 351-372.

McNamara, T. (2008). The socio-political and power dimensions of tests. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2542-2554). New York: Springer.

McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension (Vol. 56). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

McNamara, T., & Ryan, K. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: The place of English literacy in the Australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly8(2), 161-178.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education & Macmillan.

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing 13, 243-256.

Morrow, K. (1986). The evaluation of tests of communicative performance. Innovations in language testing, 3, 1-13.

Murphy, M., & Bamber, J. (2012). Introduction: From Fromm to Lacan: Habermas and education in conversation. Studies in Philosophy and Education31(2), 103-107.

Murphy, M., & Fleming, T. (Eds.). (2010). Habermas, critical theory and education. New York: Routledge.

Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The qualitative researcher’s companion573(2002), 305-329.

Scruton, R. (2002). A short history of modern philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein. Psychology Press.

Shohamy, E. (1998). Critical language testing and beyond. Studies in educational evaluation24(4), 331-345.

Shohamy, E. (1999a). Critical language testing, responsibilities of testers and rights of test takers. Paper presented at the AERA Convention, Montreal.

Shohamy, E. (1999b). Critical language testing: uses and consequences of tests, responsibilities of testers and rights of test-takers. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tsukuba, Japan.

Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Pearson.

Shohamy, E. (2001b). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language testing18(4), 373-391.

Sitton, J. (2003). Habermas and contemporary society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stoynoff, S. (2012). Research agenda: Priorities for future research in second language. Language Teaching, 45(2), 234-249.

Stobart, G. (2003). The impact of assessment: Intended and unintended consequences. Assessment in Education, 16(2), 139-140.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. Psychology Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The philosophy of science (Vol. 14). New York: Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA. In R. Wodak, & M.                                                                                                                                  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.95-120). London: Sage publication.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1986). Racism in the press. London: Arnold.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 7 (pp. 291-302). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wall, D., & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study. Language testing10(1), 41-69.

Watanabe, Y. (1997). The washback effects of the Japanese university entrance examinations of English: classroom-based research. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Lancaster.

Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.

Xi, X. (2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing27(2), 147-170.