A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

2 6 6
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
is likely to be dependent on the situation. And on what basis are scores
assigned to performance? Depending on the situation, even highly com-
petent speakers of the given language may vary enough in their responses so
that it is not clear what an acceptable or unacceptable answer would be.
2
Consequently, keeping the test practical in administration and scoring may
not be easy. For example, role-plays take time to conduct and may require
multiple ratings. In addition, they are difficult to standardize if every conver-
sation is truly co-constructed by the given participants. Also, constructing 
a discourse completion test (DCT) can be a challenge.
3
Thus, it can take 
creativity to design instruments that test pragmatics reliably and without
expending an excess of time and effort.
4
Despite the challenges posed by attempting to assess complex L2 prag-
matic behavior, there are enough tendencies or preferred approaches among
native or near-native speakers of the language to warrant both teaching
these to learners and assessing their performance. There are, in fact, benefits
to including pragmatics among those language features that are assessed,
especially if we focus on areas of pragmatics that bring into contrast key 
differences between two language communities. The emphasis in teaching
would be on situations where divergence from the native-like norm in per-
formance may lead to pragmatic failure – namely, when the uptake from the
speech act interaction is not what the speaker desired (usually because the
speech act somehow violated the norms of the community; see Chapter 5).
If you as teacher readers accept that pragmatics has an important role 
to play, then we can underscore that position by being sure to include its
assessment in both short quizzes and longer tests. As indicated above, learners
tend to pay extra attention to what they are going to be tested on. So let us
say, for example, that a teacher of Japanese provides instruction on how to
complain effectively in Japanese (e.g., a customer to a sales clerk about the
slow service in the store). It would then be useful to test for the students’
ability to perceive and produce such complaints. In this chapter, we will
explore some principles for constructing tasks that elicit and, to some
extent, assess learners’ pragmatic comprehension and production.
5
Chapter
15 will provide practical examples of classroom-based instruments, with
more in-depth attention to how classroom teachers might evaluate learners’
pragmatic receptive and productive skills and give feedback to learners.
2
See McNamara and Roever (2006).
3
See McNamara and Roever (2006: 54 –75).
4
Roever (2004).
5
For more on assessment of pragmatics as a research tool, see Cohen (2004); Roever
(2004).

---

A P P R O A C H E S T O A S S E S S I N G P R A G M A T I C A B I L I T Y
2 6 7
Approaches to assessing performance of 
L2 speech acts
In this section we will look both at how to elicit speech act performance and
also how to evaluate the students’ responses once they have been elicited. 
A prime concern is making sure, if you are teacher readers, that your 
students understand the situations in which pragmatic performance is being
assessed. It may be appropriate, for example, to describe the situation in
your students’ L1 or dominant language, in order to make sure that they
fully understand the contextual factors involved, especially if they are in a