خلاصة:
Alternative assessment approaches received considerable attention soon after a discontent with traditional, one-shot testing. These approaches, however, have been used only to improve learners’ linguistic ability despite communicative models of language which pointed that knowledge of language also involves pragmatic ability (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996). The present study tries to explore the effect of two alternative assessment approaches (self-assessment and conference) on students’ production of four speech acts (apology, complaint, request, and refusal) plus politeness markers. A sample of 64 EFL students participated in this study. Metapragmatic explanations were given to three groups of university students studying English as a foreign language. The two treatment groups received instruction through self-assessment and conference and a comparison group was exposed to the conventional one-shot testing. The results of the One-Way ANOVA conducted after the treatment revealed an outperformance of alternative assessment approaches to the conventional one in the production of the four speech acts and politeness markers in WDCTs. A qualitative analysis of students’ self-ratings in the self-assessment group revealed that they focused more on linguistic criteria during the initial sessions and on pragmatic ones by the end of the treatment. It can be concluded that alternative assessment approaches are beneficial to students’ production of speech acts and politeness markers. In the end, the applicability and the positive effect of alternative approaches in pragmatic assessment are emphasized.
ملخص الجهاز:
"Is there any significant difference between alternative and non-alternative assessment procedures as far as students’ written production of speech acts (refusal, complaint, request, and apology) and politeness markers are concerned?
Students received metapragmatic explanations for the strategies used by native speakers, the relevant politeness markers and the three contextual factors (power, distance, and imposition) for each speech act.
4. Results The results of the analyses of the students’ pretest and posttest WDCTs and a qualitative analysis of the criteria students used in the self-assessment group to rate their pragmatic production are presented in this section.
Based on the analysis, five groups of rating criteria were identified as no specific criteria, grammatical criteria, politeness criteria, contextual factors criteria (by referring to the level of imposition, power relationships and distance), and pragmatic strategies criteria.
” Students in this group also tended to give a lower-than expected score to their responses to each scenario even if their answers were suitable for the situation based on the speech act and politeness strategies they were taught.
6. Conclusion To sum up, the two alternative approaches (self-assessment and conference) used in the present study were found to be advantageous to students as far as their production of the speech acts and politeness markers were concerned.
Students in the conference and self-assessment groups were able to use the native speaker strategies and politeness markers in their productions of the WDCTs. Therefore, the present study might be a proof to the benefits of alternative assessment approaches (self-assessment and conference) in improving students’ pragmatic production of speech acts and politeness markers."