This is a post that I want to keep front and center until we get moving on it. So I will keep it here as what they call a “sticky” post where it will appear first each time that you log on. We will do this for awhile. We don’t want to turn into designers of curricula, but we do want to be aware of everything in our guidelines and standards at both the state and national levels and how they relate to Robert’s post on connecting assessment to the three modes of communication. The part in bold below is the part I think that we all need to be conversant with. At the very least, we should be able to tell administrators, parents and colleagues what they are and where they came from and what they mean to us as teachers who use comprehensible input. (Robert, exactly exactly where did they come from – got a link?). Then we can explore what they mean in terms of the assessment piece in our own work next year.
Robert also said this:
“…these are just some preliminary thoughts of mine, and I’m using your blog to … help me refine my own thinking…”.
We need to keep in mind that this is not the place for hard facts and conclusive ideas that wrap up the topic of comprehensible input into a nice and tidy package. The change we are in is much to grand to come up with something like that. As soon we think we understand this stuff, it’ll change on us. But this floating around, ironically, will bring us closer to the fluidity that we seek in our teaching. So we don’t know where this assessment discussion is going. I just want a way to align with standards and hold my kids responsible in a human way, for what they do as humans, not as robotic memorizers. Echoing Laurie, I think that Robert has found the road that leads in that direction and he is inviting us along.
Ben,
I still have seven weeks of school left, but I’m already thinking about next year. My goals for the summer are 1) revise and resubmit my AP syllabus [required because of the new AP German test]; 2) develop a suggested curriculum organized around the use of readers and music as end products for backward planning of CI via PQA and stories to present to my district; 3) refine a standards-based assessment model organized around the three modes of communication.
My district is emphasizing standards-based grading and insisting that study habits and citizenship not be part of an academic grade. Homework is to count as no more than 10% of the final grade. I happen to agree with this emphasis, but many teachers are simply disguising homework, study habits and citizenship by calling them something else (e.g. homework becomes “formative assessment”).
The tension I have felt in this grading system, though, has been the relational nature of CI/TPRS teaching. How should that aspect enter into a grade? Isn’t it just another name for “participation”, which is normally a disguised citizenship grade? I have been using a categorization and weighting system based on Scott Benedict’s work – it’s really pretty good – but felt that it didn’t cover all the aspects of teaching in a way that works for me.
Recently I’ve been doing some reading in the CA State Standards as well as 21st Century World Language Skills and had an epiphany of sorts. I think it will address all of my concerns. What is it? The application of the three modes of communication. So, here is what I’m thinking. Rather than applying standards (usually graded as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, Far Below Basic) to the skills of listening, reading, speaking, writing, culture and language manipulation, I will apply them to the three modes of communication: interpersonal, interpretive and presentational.
To me it is more than a matter of semantics but rather a different way of applying the standards. ACTFL supports the idea, indicated by this quote from the World Languages Skills Map: The language teaching community has reached strong consensus regarding the goals of a language program: to develop students’ language proficiency around modes of communicative competence reflecting real life communication. (I first became acquainted with the skills map through an ACTFL web page.) As I see it currently,
1. Interpersonal mode is the heart of language acquisition. It is defined thus: Interpersonal mode is active oral or written communication in which the participants negotiate meaning to make sure that their message is understood. If a student isn’t actively negotiating meaning (sitting up, shoulders straight, focused eyes, cute answers, choral response, no private conversation, no distractive behavior, etc.), then he is not meeting this standard.
2. Interpretive mode is based on command of the “receptive skills” (hearing and reading) as well as an understanding of culture and language structure (albeit at an often unconscious level). It is defined as follows: Interpretive mode is the ability to listen to or read a text and interpret the meaning. If students are unable to tell what a text means (e.g. give an English equivalent) or state what has been happening in class discussion, they obviously are not meeting the standard of the interpretive mode.
3. Presentational mode is based on a command of the “productive skills” (speaking and writing) as well as a certain facility in language manipulation plus an understanding of culture. Presentational mode is written or oral communication in which the presenter must take into account the impact on the audience since this is one-way communication with limited opportunity for feedback. This would include fluency in writing (e.g. timed writing), accuracy in speech and writing (both grammatical and phonological – at the appropriate level, of course), use of idioms and more. Obviously it is the most difficult of the modes and the one acquired last.
At the moment I am pondering how to fit other aspects of the Standards into these three modes and what kind of weight to give each mode. My initial thinking is that at level 1, interpersonal should be weighted anywhere from 50% to 75% and presentational weighted somewhere around 5% to 10%. At each level the percentages would change because students would be more capable of both interpretation and presentation, but interpersonal should always weigh more than either of the other two.
Ben, these are just some preliminary thoughts of mine, and I’m using your blog to do some ruminating out loud. If you think there’s merit, I would love to see this start a discussion about grading, if for no other reason than it would help me refine my own thinking.