A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

2 9 2
F U R T H E R I S S U E S I N L E A R N I N G , T E A C H I N G , A N D A S S E S S M E N T
7
While evaluation using rubrics shows the degree to which the criteria are achieved,
checklists consist of a simpler dichotomy just indicating whether those criteria are
achieved or not (Tedick 2002). An example of a checklist for assessing the structure of
discourse can be found in Akikawa and Ishihara (in press).
8
Brown (2004); O’Malley and Valdez Pierce (1996).

---

A S S E S S M E N T O F P R A G M A T I C S I N T H E C L A S S R O O M
2 9 3
■
To what extent do learners understand the language as intended by the
speaker?
■
How is the learner’s language most likely interpreted by L2 community
members in terms of the dimension(s) below?
■
To what extent is the language effective in conveying the speaker’s
intention?
The specific dimensions of language include the choice and use of:
■
vocabulary/phrases (e.g., a big favor, I just need . . .);
■
grammatical structures (e.g. Can you . . . / Would you
. . . / I was wondering if . . . / Would it be possible . . . ?);
■
strategies for a speech act (i.e., the selection of formulas and the way
they are used) (e.g., giving a reason for a request, apologizing for the trouble,
thanking for complying with the request);
■
choice and use of pragmatic tone (e.g., how sincere the speaker appears
with verbal and non-verbal cues, see Chapter 6);
■
choice and use of organization (rhetorical structure) of the
written/spoken discourse (e.g., introduction, body, conclusion);
■
choice and use of discourse markers and fillers (e.g., by the way, speaking
of . . . , well, um); and
■
choice and use of epistemic stance markers (i.e., words and phrases to
show the speaker’s stance, such as: I think, maybe, seem, suppose, tend to,
and of course).
This list represents a scope of potential evaluative criteria, so teachers would
need to select, add, or adapt the ones that suit their instructional contexts.
Again, it would be best to have the choice of instructional focus directly 
correspond to the evaluative focus. It would be ideal if the teachers have
baseline data (through either formal or informal research) of (ideally naturally
occurring) pragmatic behavior sampled from the target language speakers
and use these data as a reference in evaluating learners’ pragmatic receptive
and productive skills. Below is an example of analytic scoring
9
focusing on
linguistic aspects.
Example 2
This is adapted from an example in Chapter 14.
9
For a definition of analytic scoring (as opposed to holistic scoring) and examples of
more rigorous analytic and holistic rubrics, see Ishihara (in press, a).

---