Evaluating the Implementation of Authentic Assessment in the Pragmatics Course at the English Education Department, Yogyakarta State University

This research aims at revealing the extent to which is the implementation of authentic assessment in the pragmatics course at the English Education Department, Yogyakarta State University. The model used in this program evaluation is the Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM). It was carried out at the English Education Department, English Language and Literature Study Program and three data collection techniques were used, including questionnaire, documentation, and observation. Part of the data collected using the questionnaire were analysed using the quantitative analysis technique, while the data obtained through documentation, observation, and some data collected using the questionnaire were analysed using the qualitative analysis. The results of the study show that the implementation of authentic assessment in the pragmatics course at the program definition stage falls into the “High” category with -0.06 of Item Measure Order average. The program installation stage is in the “High” category with the average equal to -0.14, and the program process stage is also in the “Low” category with 0.45 of Item Measure Order average score. Concerning the program product stage, its Item Measure Order average is 0.02 for its aspect of the assessment methods’ effectiveness in uncovering students’ ability, skills, and competence. It is consequently ranked in the “Low” category. The other aspect of the program product stage is the students’ final scores in the pragmatics course and its average is 3.22, which indicates that the students’ success rate is in the “Very High” category. However, the average score for the implementation of the authentic assessment in the pragmatics course is 0.06, which indicates it is ranked in the “Low” category. Such a low implementation is due to the unavailability of the assessment scheme and scoring rubric and a minimal (only 54.54%) diversification of assessment methods. On the top of that, there is infrequency of the lecturer’s feedback on the students’ academic achievement and no portfolio assessment was used, which means the students’ learning is not monitored in a comprehensive manner as indicated in the curriculum