<![CDATA[Although communicative language teaching is extensively studied, there is a scarcity of empirical research investigating the integration of pragmatic and discourse competencies into formal assessment frameworks within Indonesian higher education. This results in a disparity between educational objectives and assessment methodologies. This study aimed to evaluate the assessment ecosystem by examining: 1) the incorporation of pragmatic/discourse criteria in official rubrics, 2) the comprehension and application of these criteria by lecturer-assessors, and 3) the statistical correlation between scores on linguistic and communicative competences. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods case study was conducted. The first phase comprised a qualitative analysis of scoring rubrics. Phase 2 employed phenomenological interviews and stimulated recall with six assessors. Phase 3 utilized a quantitative correlational analysis of scores from 18 students on a structured speaking assignment. Rubrics gave pragmatic/discourse criteria very little weight (an average of 12%), and they were not well-defined. Assessors appreciated these competencies but resorted to rating accuracy because of rubric ambiguity, cognitive overload, and a bias towards ‘objective’ criteria. There was a very strong positive correlation (r=.84) between accuracy and pragmatic scores, which means that the raters did not really separate the two ideas. The research uncovers a systemic cycle in which policy, practice, and outcomes undermine communicative ability. Indonesian teacher education programs urgently need to change how they assess students in order to reach their stated teaching goals. This includes redesigning rubrics and training raters.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
