Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
2nd Grade Assessment Rubric
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Research Question
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
We Have the Research
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
21 thoughts on “2nd Grade Assessment Rubric”
Alisa, very nice work. I love how clear and kid-friendly this is. Because you state “demonstrates understanding” without a clear description of how, I would say this is best to use as a summative assessment, which is likely how you are using it since you’re going to the trouble to send it home (probably mid-term or end of the semester or something).
I love the parent note, just such a nice touch, and it reminds me of my elementary days. Alisa, I want to send my child to your Spanish class and get this kind of authentic assessment in little guy’s backpack.
Just an aside: I’ve noticed Angie, Alisa, and Lance’s rubrics are all holistic, not analytical. Is that the standard in foreign language? Is this simply what you feel most comfortable using? Just curious.
Claire, my knowledge of rubrics come from either task based or performance based criteria. Ex: Did student use french only then have a range etc… Did student use X grammar aspect correctly throughout project or performance.
All this to say that I do not approve of this use of rubrics but it is my experience of seeing it in a foreign language class during my observations/student teaching. Some teachers use a holistic grade plus a particular skill or task that was “taught” during the unit such as the use of the subjunctive to create environmental awareness. They either average or total.
I’m not worried about the type of language used; “holistic” in the sense of no-targets authentic communication is obviously better than focusing on “Did student use X grammar aspect correctly” (that’s obviously not what we want).
I’m rather confused by the format some of you are using to build your rubrics. I haven’t seen a rubric laid out like Alisa’s above –perhaps in this instance some would want this developed into a holistic rubric like jGR. This particular format confused Steven too: “My only question is the use of “emerging” and “practicing”. I as a parent would not know. I would have to look it up.” Ditto, Steven.
ISR/jGR is so great because it has proficiency level descriptions in it, and it establishes mastery. Rubrics are great at disaggregating proficiency levels, but only when they are laid out with clear descriptors. But I get that Alisa was trying to simplify for parents.
There are many formats. I was given rubrics in grad school that were just checklists of things I had to include for an assignment. Some of these (Angie’s?) are horizontal versions of vertical scales (see Marzano Proficiency Scales).
I interpreted Alisa’s E as “getting there” and P as “it’s happening (i.e. the student is currently Practicing behaviors/skills).” I love how the two levels of what a student can do have the positive feeling of “I can’t do this YET (but it’s possible)” along with “I can do this now.” Are there really more levels we need to know about? I don’t know French…yet, but I will at some point. I don’t need to feel like I know far less French than my friend learning French. She doesn’t know it either, we’re just both not there YET and our skills are “emerging.” Crystal clear to me. Here are some interesting word relationships used for rubrics (https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/sheridan-center/teaching-learning/assessing-student-learning/rubrics-scales)
I would argue that the fewer levels we describe, the more accurate and clear. Are there really 6 clear levels of Interpersonal Communication, or is that just convenient for the jGR points? Could we clearly describe 12 levels? Could we clearly describe just 3? I actually find Alisa’s rubric clear because of just two options “yes I observe this every day,” and “I don’t see this happening all the time.” Interesting how in high school this might be viewed as not “rigorous” enough for an assessment, when in fact it’s just a matter of complexity and expectations of what rubrics seem to look like.
Many analytical rubrics (all?) separate language into smaller parts. I’m not convinced we need to do this. I like what Bill VanPatten said about not assessing isolated parts, but instead communication as a whole. Here’s my edit of that show, that part is at 18min or so (https://www.dropbox.com/s/c255yogufc8r65b/Tea%20with%20BvP%20Highlights%20-%20Episode%2027%20Live%20from%20CALICO%20-%2005_13_16.mp3?dl=0)
“I would argue that the fewer levels we describe, the more accurate and clear.”
This is simply incorrect.
Again, I don’t question what you bring up with BVP: holistic language. We do need to instruct and assess holistic language. It’s not the linguistic competency that I question, only the format; I question the reliability of a rubric in this particular format.
This is a not a big deal in a simple parent letter, though.
Interesting. The following quote would not jive well with SOME adminz.
“I would argue that the fewer levels we describe, the more accurate and clear.”
BUT since language acquisition IS too complex AND too abstract to teach as a content area (liked this BVP quote taken from Lance’s highlights files) it seems like the quote does hold up. The reason being is that the fewer level we describe the more we acknowledge the language acquisition phenomenon.
I would add that more importantly, the levels need to be clear but broad in order to describe language holistically and not in isolated “levels”. Isolated levels tend to show a hierarchy or even linear growth of language acquisition which makes our work seem like there are levels similar to what ACTFL is attempting to do with their Novice Low/Novice High. The rate is unique to every student. I do not want to mark kids down for not demonstrating understanding.
I would include in the above that the student communicates “misunderstanding”
Lil kids DON’T USU KNOW when they are miscuing or not understanding and very seldom do they signal.
I have consulted w/many other elementary teachers on this – our kids hardly ever signal. So the onus is on us to do TONS of comp checks.
Got it Alisa. Instruction and structures needs to be age appropriate.
Alisa, This is awesome and clear. The specifics are really what you as the teacher and thus expert define. Since this seems like an evaluation sent to parents you make it clear as possible. My only question is the use of “emerging” and “practicing”. I as a parent would not know. I would have to look it up.
The choice of the three categories is awesome: you have individual listening/paying attention, demonstrating understanding (responding) and you have the classroom management piece of being respectful. This covers a wide range of essential expectations for a smooth class.
Alisa’s rubric is at one end of the spectrum with just two levels (Emerging…Practicing). The other end of that spectrum, practically speaking, would be something like 6 levels (Unacceptable, Emerging, Minimally Acceptable, Acceptable, Accomplished, Exemplary).
As an exercise, let’s take Alisa’s first category, “Listens attentively, maintains focus & attention,” and determine 6 levels of how well students can do that. There are two obvious dimensions of measurement; frequency (e.g. not at all, rarely, sometimes, most of the time, nearly always, and always), and amount (e.g. to nothing, to few statements, to some statements, to most statements, to almost all statements, to all statements). We could choose one, or include both on a rubric with 2 dimensions. There are a few questions to consider:
1) Is it possible to accurately observe that one student listens, etc. Rarely and another does so Sometimes?
2) What is the difference between a student who listens, etc. Rarely and one who does so Sometimes in terms of how they can communicate?
3) What can the teacher and/or student do differently for one student who listens, etc. Rarely and one who does so Sometimes?
Are the answers to those questions any different if we use Alisa’s rubric as-is?
1) Is it possible to accurately observe that one student listens, etc. less-consistently (Emerging) and another does so more-consistently (Practicing)?
2) What is the difference between one student who listens, etc. less-consistently (Emerging) and another who does so more-consistently (Practicing) in terms of how they can communicate?
3) What can the teacher and/or student do differently for one student who listens, etc. less-consistently (Emerging) and another who does so more-consistently (Practicing)?
It could be that “Listens attentively and maintains focus & attention” does not fit well with a 6 level rubric. Maybe it would do better with only 4 levels. One thing remains absolutely certain, however, that when there are two options like how Alisa wrote them (not yet doing & doing), there is a clear choice. It seems only logical that we don’t get bogged down by how well, or how not well the “not yet” is going.
Here’s a range of possible rubric templates from One Thing assessed in One Way, up to One Thing assessed in Five Ways.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C0oh8VLu7aN1tsVPwfmIYceU7M4Q56iBq6ek43U1hAw/edit?usp=sharing
I love this. Clear and simple. It is pretty much what I’ve distilled mine down to these days: 3 observable skills, and for my HS kids : “nah”, “sorta”, “on point”(or “mad nasty”)
I also like the 2 choices to indicate “are we there yet?” I don’t know all of the implications of the various rubric levels other than the fact that they can correspond to a grade, and so are mostly CYA. I also assume that there is more to a rubric than this, and I have no idea what I am talking about, so I always defer to you all. I don’t truly know what I’m seeing in the moment that tells me if a student understands a little, slightly more, etc. I really can only tell if they understand or not.
More fine-tuned descriptors I guess would show a more accurate picture of where the child is, but is that feasible in the process, like right in the moment? I don’t know. Seems easier for me to see/hear/feel in the instant of the interaction to have 2 choices.
I see the value of a portfolio in dialing in more accurately “where.” I really know ZERO about rubrics, how to make them, theories they are tied to, etc. Obviously I have never studied them (actually have never studied assessment…eek!) so all of my info is from all of you and literally from stealing (with credit always) your stuff and adapting it. And then changing it again because it never quite works the way I think it will work. A whole lotta trial and error and trial… in my world 😀
Okay, gloves are coming off. There are too many of our students at stake to let this continue.
Poor jen said “More fine-tuned descriptors I guess would show a more accurate picture of where the child is,” (that’s all I’m asking, let’s just add a scale of some kind to show what we are looking for with some perspective to make our rubrics impervious to data turds’ attacks. This short-hard simplified version is okay for parents or even to sit on our corkboard as a reminder, but the more “fine-tuned descriptors” like jGR are the ones we take with us to data meetings. They are our biggest weapons in the war on testing.
But jen continues “… but is that feasible in the process, like right in the moment? I don’t know.”
Lance has planted this doubt in your mind for some unknown reason. We do know; we know when lightbulbs are on, when kids are sitting up straight and engaged. We assess better than any test because we use more reliable and valid assessment instruments, specifically rubrics like yours, jen.
Lance, stop this ridiculous attack on the reliability of rubrics. That we can’t rate them with any degree of certainty. This is the lie traditional teachers want you to buy into. You’ve got Jen thinking her rubric is somehow too difficult to assess with. It’s absurd.
It is not too complicated! After you use it for years, you don’t even fill it out or look at it any more. In fact, it’s not too hard for my kids, they have it memorized (or the gist of it) and know what each number means in a very practical, real way.
Stop casting doubt on the one thing we have to back up our stellar authentic assessments: rubrics. Yes, you can fill them out and be very certain of their accuracy because you are smart, highly-qualified professionals… and because the alternative is a test.
Think about it. Someone has to deal with this angsty uncertainty: did I mark this right? Am I sure? It might as well be us, not the kids, agonizing over multiple-choice tests.
With a multiple-choice test, traditional teachers don’t have to take any risk of being wrong because they make the answer key. However, kids are unfairly burdened with this heavy choice: A, B, C, D having to deal with the uncertainty of assessments that will never be 100% accurate 100% of the time.
There is always going to be some level of uncertainty for someone because we can’t actually crack open a kid’s head and see inside. A margin of error exists. Wouldn’t that margin of error shrink tremendously if we took the time to fill out rubrics? Rubrics are only a possibly if we consider very practical matters like assessment reliability, which is the issue I bring up above. There is less interrater reliability with an assessment without a clearly defined scale.
Yes, some rubrics can become too cumbersome, and yes, we probably need a book or a guide to walk us through how to score these rubrics (thanks Ben!) but that doesn’t mean we just give up and cave into tests.
Don’t give up on jGR or any other powerfully defined rubric, jen. There are too many kids who need this.
Claire said:
…“fine-tuned descriptors” like jGR are the ones we take with us to data meetings. They are our biggest weapons in the war on testing….
Word. Otherwise the data turds will tell us that we don’t “care or know how” – as I was told two weeks ago by such a turd in my school – to assess our kids, because in their black and white world of the data gathering industry, we don’t.
Claire said to Lance:
…stop casting doubt on the one thing we have to back up our stellar authentic assessments: rubrics….
The part of me, in reading this, that wants us to de-intellectualize foreign language education, which I see as one of the great promises inherent in TPRS, to make things more human and less robotically invasive, agrees with this statement.
Until something better comes along (we haven’t yet begun the portfolio conversation and probably shouldn’t until we figure this one out on rubrics), we should probably nourish and, like a candle in the winds of changes, protect it so that the flame can only grow bigger, destroying the old stinking thinking in our minds about grading for the betterment of the kids.
Lance I see you as agreeing on the overarching big picture with Claire, so let’s not get bogged down in details. Until someone can offer something better, rubrics are all we have right now and Claire is doing an excellent job of shielding the “rubrics candle” from the strong winds of mind with her big heart and those big hands and especially with those great big thumbs. Ain’t nobody going to blow that candle out anyway with those big Tennessee thumbs up there forming a protective roof over the flame.
In keeping with my blog posts from yesterday, let’s hang it up and give it a rest. It’s time to do that now. It’s summertime now. We’re not going to figure it out until the second half of this game begins in the fall anyway. We all have too much to learn and now is not the time.
Plus, Robert hasn’t yet weighed in on it, to my knowledge, so we need that as well.
Good time for a brain break? I think so.
“Certs is a breath mint!”
“Certs is a candy mint!”
“Stop! You’re both right!’
I feel a little bit like we’re in that famous Certs commercial.
Lance is correct that having fewer “gradations of correctness” actually produces greater accuracy in placement – especially when we are comparing to “standard grading scales”. Can a teacher truly distinguish 59 degrees of failure? Or 41 degrees of “success”? Furthermore, how many times do teachers give tests and quizzes with exactly 100 items? They give quizzes with 5, 10, or 20 questions and “convert” that to “percentages” or hundred-point scales. The margin for error in placing a student is as much as two letter grades. How is that equitable?
BTW, the 100-point scale did not become the norm until the widespread use of computers in grading. 100 is convenient for programmers; there are no sound pedagogical reasons for it. Schools adopted percentage grades because they fit the thinking and needs of computer programmers who were providing software to school districts. This grading scale has no basis in learning or education.
The most common scales prior to the widespread use of computers were 3-6 points, and this seems to be the range of the most useful and accurate gradations. Obviously, the most simple categorization is “everyone”, but that tells you nothing. The next simplest is “pass/fail”, and that is used in universities. Three to six categories fits well with human thinking: we often group things in threes, and more recent cognitive science indicates that the human core memory repository is set up to handle four +/-one (i.e. 3-5) meaningful items in our conscious our working memory.
So, I would agree with Lance that fewer categories are better, to a point. (BTW again, I base grades on a scale of 1 – 5.)
However, we need criteria for placement in the categories, and that is where rubrics come in. We worked for a long time on jGR, and that allows us to give students a good idea of how well they are meeting these standards of interpersonal communication. And the rubrics need to be clear. This takes us back to the ideas of test validity. It has to be something that the teacher can use consistently and get consistent results, so it has to be sufficiently clear but not so detailed that it becomes unusable because it is so cumbersome. There are some pretty horrible rubrics out there, but there are some pretty good ones as well. I am just tossing out an idea, but it seems to me 3-5 items is a good number for a rubric if those 3-5 items are clearly formulated.
jen said:
…I really know ZERO about rubrics, how to make them, theories they are tied to, etc. ….
Well jen had you not tinkered with jGR we wouldn’t have it, so there is that.
Thanks for the feedback, friends!
As I frequently mention, I teach 8 classes a day (‘cept 7 on early-release Mondays) – so that’s 39 weekly classes across 4 grades- 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Can you imagine the confusion of flying bits and pieces if I broke the rubric down into 6 frequency nodes on a continuum? I don’t collect any documentation or evidence other than my own anecdotal, some video clips, and 2 annual Cornerstones.
Interesting that y’all commented on the E & P (Emerging and Practicing) criteria – I did eliminate the ‘always,’ ‘sometimes,’& ‘never’ I used to use (without reflection pre-T/CI…) and yes – I did reframe it all positively to emphasize that everyone in my class is acquiring, wherever they started and at whatever rate/speed they move!
Luckily, everyone I teach is a novice (‘cept for the small handful of Heritage Learners) within their first 400 hours of exposure (by the end of 4th grade), so I feel I can’t really measure output meaningfully, so why bother?
Notice that on the rubric I kinda ‘bookended’ the language skill descriptor with 2 supportive behaviors – first attention, then comprehension, then ‘self control.’ This 1st & 2nd grade template is a bit shorter/simpler than the 3-4 template – I’ll send that soon…it includes some reference to reading and limited speaking. If I am misunderstanding the query about more analytical reporting, please clarify! How can this report be more informative to me and to parents?
I report in the winter on 3rd & 4th graders, and in the Spring I report on the 1st & 2nd graders. Once a yr. Suits me fine.
And that’s awesome. There’s a recording somewhere of me cutting up a rubric to make it more positive and I took out entire columns -specifically the higher portions of scales to show where “mastery” starts for beginner students. Do what you’ve got to do to make it fair for kids and I also realize this is something you’re sending parents, not taking to the data meeting.
I just thought it was worth mentioning that this document has a purpose, but ISR/jGR would serve another purpose- showing the fullest scale of non-proficient to proficient for administrators or when determining programing or placement, which has higher reliability.
I can tell from the document above that you assess with compassion and try to give parents the most appropriate feedback.
The only data-collecting I’ve ever had to do was the SOPA (Student Oral Proficiency Assessment – from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)- don’t get me started…) for 3 years running. It was a big contract $$ that my district had w/CAL to establish a baseline just as we were transitioning to CI. Of course our progress looks great! but the whole project was…. unscientific to say the least. 4th, 6th and 8 grade; just a sampling.
From an admin pt of view that project was worthwhile as CAL /ACTFL still hold sway and are considered the Gold Standard. We ‘proved ourselves’ and that was that.
Suffice to say that an output oral interview based assessment was chosen for our new input based instruction.
And we still came out smelling like a rose.