Sildenafil + Tadalafil più economico senza prescrizione medica Quanto tempo per Sildenafil + Tadalafil generico per lavorare? Comprare Sildalis online Acquistare Sildalis Sildenafil + Tadalafil
Stendra Super Force generico all’ingrosso Valutazione 4.6 sulla base di 352 voti. Nome del prodotto: Stendra Super Force Categoria: Disfunzione Erettile Nome commerciale: Extra Super
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
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
Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!
Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.
Unlock with Patreon
56 thoughts on “Blaine Teaching”
I don’t quite understand the rationale for choral translation. Why not just read it? Krashen has said we learn to read by simply understanding what we read, and switching to L1 should be done sparingly. When we read compelling stories, we should be so engrossed in what we are reading we don’t notice what language it’s in and when we switch to L1, it “breaks the spell.”
For me, the choice to use L1 is for when kids are really stuck, or perhaps to front-load or clarify a word or two here and there. Is word-for-word translation necessary or beneficial?
Of course, we can’t do Blaine’s version of choral L1 translation in ESL (we don’t share the same L1s), so I’ve never tried. It might be useful. They certainly look busy and on-task. But plain ol’ reading has been working fine for me. Am I missing something?
No Claire your point about choral translation is spot on with something Krashen told me six months ago when he was looking over and reaming out Reading Option A. He was of course exactly correct but my responses to him were all about how I teach in a school and need (the choral translation, etc.) in order to survive. I plan to post all he said about ROA one day. Maybe.
Good questions, Claire.
Blaine is big on keeping students engaged.
He is also big on the teacher knowing whether or not the students understand. If the kids cannot tell us what it means we have a big clue about how comprehensible their input is.
When we detect breakdown in understanding we can fix it through discussion and spin-off.
Choral reading is a way to build team spirit and team work.
When being observed it looks pretty impressive. When there is breakdown in understanding we can go to solos. We can call on the students we know will be able (or are likely) to give the best sense of the sentence. We can give that same sentence to another student almost as capable so that everybody looks good and the students are getting more processing time and more opportunities for aural recognition. My idea is that we keep things moving, maintaining the energy level, having a strategy for difficulties, and including everybody.
I teach mostly non-readers, meaning that if students have a choice between reading for pleasure and anything else, they will do anything else. They have learned to read but they have not learned to love reading. A few years ago it took one of my A+ students almost three terms before she was asking to read. Prior to this she was asking not to read.
If you are successful with students reading to themselves, keep doing it. Choral reading is a tool in the CI tool box. As for ESL, I would guess you have more access to compelling stories in English than in French.
Also note that this is not so much “word-for-word translation.” It is phrase-for-phrase and sentence-for-sentence. That shows a greater level of understanding.
We can make this even more compelling and indicative of understanding by expecting the students to render in English what we have just said in L2 mimicking our pace and intonation. If we are being sad they must be sad, if we are expressing doubt they must express doubt.
Non-readers. That’s sad.
As you said, books are more readily available for my ESL students than my French students, but I don’t see that as a big obstacle.
I still have successful readers in my French class, even if they didn’t read books (that I write for them-yes, I write my kids books because I’m insane.)
Books are not the only form of reading. Just writing emergent targets on the board, then repeating/pointing at word as you speak is an early form of reading. Most TPRS reading isn’t from books, but from reading the text after a story.
Neither my French students (who I could do choral translation with, but why?) nor my ESL students NEED choral translation… so I just don’t do it.
Why can’t you just read the story retell in L2? If you think the text you’ve written is not i+1, just write with more simple language. You can use so many other superior forms of support. I prefer writing in rebus or in an embedded text with images for visual support. How is translation really necessary?
“If the kids cannot tell us what it means we have a big clue about how comprehensible their input is.”
This I agree with, but I don’t see what this necessitates translation. Could they just tell us what in means with a picture, acting it out, or with simple L2? There are other means of assessment that require higher-order thinking, not simple word-for-word translation. Even finding a key word from the sentence and translating ONE word makes kids prioritize and think more dynamically about the text. Translation doesn’t seem necessary (or even beneficial) for assessment.
“When we detect breakdown in understanding we can fix it through discussion and spin-off.”
Again, I appreciate the need for formative assessment, but guess I just don’t agree that there is a need for translation to do this.
Here’s my beef with Blaine’s “breakdown” –it’s an artificial construct. I understand it’s a word he uses to mean “informal formative assessment” -but why not just say that? There are many types of informal formative assessments, much better than choral translation: most of them are authentically embedded in the lesson, not a separate activity-like us noticing how kids are focused (per jGR) or how students respond verbally or non-verbally during the story.
Again, why translate?
Also, why make up a new word “breakdown” (which is ironically hard to breakdown and define)?
Because Blaine is the creator and expert on the word “breakdown,” it’s hard for educators (me) to argue against the notion that “Breakdown necessitates choral translation.”
If we call it what is it, things are clearer. It’s easy to argue against “Informal Formative Assessments necessitate choral translation.” Choral translation does not actually provide authentic assessment. It doesn’t really give us a glimpse of how students comprehend text and speech during instruction because it provides a scaffold that isn’t allowed during instruction.
It’s like when my little boy eats a piece of broccoli and then stands on a chair to show how he has grown. Using L1 chorally is the chair artificially propping up and skewing the assessment. It is inauthentic and doesn’t show how students perform during lessons that are conducted in L2.
Choral translation is not appropriate for assessment. But is it didactic? Are kids learning by translating? Maybe, but because there is no higher-order thinking, it’s a lesser form of “learning” (not acquisition-it’s explicit learning).
But why not use authentic assessments that require real responses in L2: either verbal or non-verbal? Why muddy the water with L1 at all?
You say it’s a “survival” thing. I say, get rid of it and replace your assessments with authentic assessment and you won’t just be surviving but thriving.
Ben, feel free to delete this if you think it’s caustic, but I think we need to listen to Krashen more and Blaine less… if only on the area of “breakdown” (assessment).
Hey Claire,
I made no claim that you have to do choral translation. I just offered some reasoning for doing what Blaine does (and what I do from time to time). If what you are doing is better, keep doing it. And let Blaine know, he is always looking for better ways to lead kids to fluency.
As far as my majority of students who do not read for pleasure on their own time, it is sad. I think it is due in large part to the fact that pleasure reading is not part of the high-stakes testing scene which is taking place in our schools. We have serious and important stuff to do. But I have to work with the students I have.
As to the relative life spans of terminology like “break down” versus “formative informal assessment,” I can only go by my experience. The second term may be more accurate once you figure out what it means and have some spare time to say it. I just heard about it recently (5-10) years with all of the high-powered wonder plans that come under the umbrella of ed reform.
“Break down”? I grew up with that word. My father pastored small churches and worked an outside job to make ends meet. We saw break down on a regular basis and my father fixed a lot of it himself in the home and in the church. Break down is when stuff stops working. When the kids stop understanding we troubleshoot to fix it. I spent 9th grade at a vo-tech HS. They actually had huge trophies that students had won for troubleshooting break down. For me, those are everyday words. The only question is how much time or money does it take to get the car on the road again? But “formative informal assessment”? Well that is something you have to have an expert come in and explain with a power point.
(I wrote a lot of this in fun, Claire, so if it seems caustic, that is probably just a leak in the battery.)
Not caustic at all. I am worried that I am coming on too strong, though and I’m sorry if I have.
I appreciate that you take the time to explain your take on Blaine’s rationale. It’s nice to have a space to throw questions out and get such thoughtful feedback.
I know I’m the only odd-ball who doesn’t use the term “breakdown” or use choral translation; and I am still new to foreign language. If “breakdown” makes his ideas easier for some, that’s okay. I appreciate Blaine’s perspective but I think thoughtful analysis of what assessments we use is needed. Maybe we do need “an expert come in and explain with a power point.” Or maybe just try sans choral translation as Krashen suggests. I believe it’s worth a try.
I don’t use choral translation. My personal findings (anecdotal) are that it interrupts the flow of language acquisition.
Digital fist-bump, Kyle.
Of course you are right Kyle. I love honesty. Whenever I have them do it I feel like a chump but I do it anyway. I like to hold the laser pointer and stop them and expostulate on grammar. It’s the old me, but hey, it’s hard to let go of a first love. I had a very serious affair with the pluperfect subjunctive when I was about 24 years old and it’s hard to let memories like that go. I mean, she even had a little hat on certain forms of the verb to be. I particularly remember an outfit she wore – nous fûmes. Wow, did she look good in that!
I do choral translations rarely, and if I do I try to limit their duration to no more than a paragraph. I’ve found that establishing meaning for those kids who still need that step drawn out, and directing class focus and energy, are two reasons I find it worth doing despite as Kyle points out the flow being interrupted, which I agree with.
I just read the rest of this thread.
I think choral translation can be used as a fine type of formative informal assessment. We can hear for breakdown, or lower confidence, in translation, from the group or an individual (by watching their mouth and their face). Of course choral translation is only one way to gauge comprehension among other ways, some better.
I also think that allowing kids to graduate school as non-readers is an embarrassing indictment of America public schools today. (that has been on my mind heavy lately as I watch my 5 year old loving books and “reading”. I don’t want him to lose that because reading becomes work and fodder for competition. Blah!)
Now I realize why I dislike Frencb grammar so much. She’s hotter and more exotic. But I’m so much younger. We’re just never going to get along.
The further she and her boyfriend Choral Translation stay from my classroom, the better.
I think we could all agree that the further away from choral translation were able to get the better.
I rarely do full choral translation throughout some thing they read — beginning of the year, level one only. Or: sometimes with students transitioning to CI in year 2+. Gloss where I think they might mix up, or when they read aloud too quietly/with mix-ups so I think they didn’t recognize some of it well. (Chinese: faking when you read aloud is near impossible.)
I am not looking for breakdown in their output, but in their comprehension, and then what I think of as “working with” that language for a little while. Ex: asking some questions using it, making a comparison that involves the confused wording, or drawing something with that language & asking the students questions about it. All my drawings are very beautiful, as I am sure to tell my students :0
Claire. I used to use choral translations early on in the year. I felt the students were engaged but then they got bored by the routine. If I feel like individual students are not paying attention. I call on them. What does ___ mean. etc… Now, I usually just have spin-of questions.
Ex: Story is on a starwars character. I ask a student did you see the new starwars film? Did you like it? did you hate it? Who payed (from previous story)? Did you eat popcorn?
etc… It is definitely a skill to practice because sometimes I fall flat in realtime. Other times the class soars and loses themselves in the language because it is about them.
Afterwards, if I feel like there’s little engagement I do a dictee. Now with Annicks jGR forms I just have them fill those out.
Steven please describe the tone, timbre, and the spirit you engage the student in when you do this:
…Ex: Story is on a Star Wars character. I ask a student did you see the new Star Wars film? Did you like it? did you hate it? Who payed (from previous story)? Did you eat popcorn?…
I don’t object to these questions at all. Indeed, it is what we do in the choral one word response process that describes what we largely do in class.
However, the reason I ask the question is because if there is even a small degree of chance that the child could be wrong and put on the spot, having been “called on” (what does that mean?), I would suggest that you not ask the questions.
Children cannot be made to think that they can be wrong in front of others. They can’t be made to think that they are wrong period. What we do is far too uplifting to then have a child feel that they can be wrong. Quantifying knowledge in this work with CI is something that we must now look at – I no longer give quick quizzes – Claire will hopefully comment on this point.
An overstated example just to make the point would be to invite an abused dog – anyone who is judged is abused on some level however minor and however housed in a smile the judgement is – to be petted and then to push them away. We smilingly invite our students to smile and be happy in the CI process and to only focus on the message, the movie, and then when we give the quiz we say, “OK that was fun, now I want you to shift your attention from just enjoying the message of the story to recalling (thinking) – stop enjoying yourself (Lori has touched on this) – and now the enjoying part is over and the judging part is starting and if you screw this up I am going to tell another big person and they will then judge you.”
As your teacher I must judge you and I will judge you so you had better snap to right now because I am calling on you and this is a class and it is serious because we learn in here and so now I want you to tell me if you saw it if you liked it if you hated it if you paid for it and if not who did? Do you understand the questions? Good, so sit up, forget all the eyes on you, show some confidence even though you are a teenager trying to figure out who you are in the classroom of life, and let me know that you are really getting a lot of knowledge from me because I just went to a lot of trouble to teach that story to you and now you better show me, validate my work, even though speech output is not that easy to just be able to off the cuff in your early years of studying a language, tell me if you loved or hated that movie and do so in Spanish. Yadda yadda you get my point Steve.
Claire started this. She questioned the discrete gathering of facts in assessing children taught using stories and pushed us to perhaps look at other ways more connected to observable non-verbal behaviors and more aligned with the assessment of skills and less with content and forced output, which you mention in you comment above is not an option at WL teacher trainings in your district.
This is a good question for me to ask. I’ll be blunt. My take on this is that if there is anything in your assessment when using CI that could in any way make a child feel that they can be wrong, that could wrench them away from the happiness they feel in class when just listening, then stop it. Just stop it.
So Ben- are you saying here (regarding tone of Star Wars questions post) to skip the PQA and just start gathering the details for a class story? I’m afraid I am missing the real point on not ‘assessing children in their storytelling class.’
I’ll jump in because I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that he’s not saying don’t assess. Ben said assessments shouldn’t be “the discrete gathering of facts.” That’s data and it’s fine for summative assessments or placement tests.
That’s not the assessment he’s talking about. Formative assessments are the kind we do constantly to check comprehension on a daily basis. If students hear “throw the banana” and they throw an apple, we know they understand “throw” but not “banana.” That’s an (very informal) formative assessment.
In real authentic assessments, the lines between assessment and instruction should blur. They should be as seamlessly integrated as possible. They should rarely involve a separate “step” (which I mention above is an argument against choral translation). Assessments that mimic how we teach, or are even use activities or the same texts from the lesson, give us a better picture of how kids really understand what they hear and see.
Ben takes issue with wrong/right, discrete answer assessments because in TPRS instruction, there is no right answer; therefore in assessments there shouldn’t be one either. We say “no” to crazy suggestions until something even crazier is said. We tell fun stories and they sit back and listen or respond nonverbally with a lower affective filter, absorbing language naturally. But then we go into teacher mode and “quiz” them and they don’t even see it coming.
You mentioned Ben’s tone. He was making a point about how kids perceive the sudden switch to questions that have one right answer.
Discrete-answer assessments don’t honor the acquisition that happens when you “absorb” language in CI. This year, a kid surprised me by saying the word “guess” in a writing. I seriously have no recollection of saying this (oops, out of bounds) and I spent a few minutes thinking… then the irony hit me. 🙂
The kid who incidentally acquired the word “guess” would never have had the chance to show this off with a traditional “quiz.” Assessments can’t be our “gotcha” moment; they are a time for kids to show-off. Maybe they aren’t even showing off language, but their awesome art when they draw a picture and label to retell; or maybe just their silliest voices during the story. Ben’s “little trees” can show off more of themselves when we take attention off of wrong/right discrete-answers.
Authentic (non-quiz) assessments are also a good time for kids to stop and reflect on what they’ve read and heard. Deep reflection doesn’t happen in choral translation or multiple-choice or what’s-the-right-answer assessments. RAFT story retells (alternative endings, settings, characters, etc.) help them process what they hear in a more dynamic way. Students are not just recalling (at the bottom of Bloom’s taxonomy) but creating (at the top). (Bonus: retells with a good rubric make an easy grade, no need to write a test.)
I would point out that my example gives a discrete command: throw the banana. It’s wrong or right. (But not really with the miscue analysis I applied: he understands “throw” but not “banana” -it’s more complex than wrong/right.) But think about how informal this is: your teacher asking you to throw a plastic banana is so ridiculous that how could any kid feel bad about themselves or even realize they were being assessed? That’s the beauty of TPRS.
If you feel the need to check for comprehension of individual words or phrases you are using, go for it, but don’t collect a grade or administer a “test”. We can just observe them interacting in context.
Claire said:
…how could any kid feel bad about themselves or even realize they were being assessed?….
Because many “TPRS” teachers still have a way of making kids feel judged even in class during a story. No blame. When we grew up with it, we bring it with us into our job as teachers. But what you say here:
…if you feel the need to check for comprehension of individual words or phrases you are using, go for it, but don’t collect a grade or administer a “test”….
Easier said than done.
I think what we need this summer is a much closer look than usual at the conferences re assessment.
Can’t we just use the L2 in the classroom? Do we really have to make it such a complicated thing? If we use it in the classroom they will be able to use it outside of the classroom. If we don’t use it in the classroom, but have memorized lists and verb forms instead, then they won’t be able to use it anywhere. What does assessment have to do with this simple truth?
The skeptical teacher who observed a killer story last week and got totally into it as well told me in a meeting later that “we would have to crunch the numbers” to validate anything being accomplished in the story and “compare them to data collected in traditional classrooms (like his obviously).
The only problem is that when a traditionally taught kid tests, it merely gives a readout on short term memory of what the child has crammed into their mind and in no way a true indicator of what has been acquired in terms of language flow, etc. by the deeper mind.
So ever since this guy has said this, I can’t get it out of my mind. It is so inaccurate to come in to a TPRS classroom, enjoy a story that is drilling language deep, so far down that we can’t measure it, and then suggest that we “crunch numbers” to determine if the TPRS class was meeting standards.
We are the only one aligning with the research and the standards, the Three Modes, etc. How can this dude say “Oh let’s crunch the numhers and see if this hippy story stuff has any accuracy to it.” The guy’s position is weak, condesending and ill-informed.
That pompous Data Turd thinks that is really our job: to crunch numbers? There is already research that PROVE with numbers and charts and stuff that TPRS kicks traditional classroom’s butts.
Yes, we need to use research-proven methods (with data), but we already have data: he just is ignorant of pro-TPRS research and it’s not your job to cater to him so he can play “researcher” at your kids’ expense.
I want to suggest a complete overhaul of how we assess. If how and when we acquire (Natural Order of Acquisition) is unconscious, then how can we do anything but break confidence when we assess using anything but jGR? Color me confused. Am I missing something? Is collecting data in comprehensible based input teaching crazy or is it a valid way to assess?
Collecting quantitative data is fine for placement. Plus, we need quantitative data to conduct studies that TPRS without targets is beneficial. (By the way, somebody get after Krashen because that’s exactly what he suggested here, p. 4: http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2015_krashen_tprs-_contributions,_problems,_new_frontiers,_and_issues.pdf)
But we’re talking very few data points during the year, like before/after the course- that’s all.
Also, if admin want data, we could collect throughout the year. ( Don’t if you don’t have to, though.) However, we would be collecting qualitative (through rubrics) rather than quantitative data. Let children select their best stories (class created and/or individual retells) in portfolios. This is a lot of work, I’m not gonna lie, but it can be done. Only do this with your barometer students or maybe on a small scale for foreign language if you think you’ll be bullied if you don’t “test” kids.
Rubrics are key. JGR is fantastic.
We also need rubrics to observe productive language this this:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=7EAFBE0D798F0F9A!11420&authkey=!ALp921B1j0cQIgc&ithint=file%2cdocx
and rubrics for non-verbal language (for beginners):
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=7EAFBE0D798F0F9A!11074&authkey=!AE-ch2ef5Pv9O9Y&ithint=file%2cdocx
These are not my favorite rubrics; I didn’t do a great job with the first one in particular. Please share if you are using a better rubric.
My question becomes how do we assess comprehension? A lot of this discussion was about the validity of quick quizzes, but the focus of a lot of rubrics is on output. I know output is the goal, but evaluation of that output can only come after mountains of input. I would love to assess comprehension on a rubric, but I’ll be honest that is a pain in the ass. When you have 200 students you want to assess as quickly as possible. The TPR rubric is a start, but what about reading? Do we move to integrated assessments? Then it becomes difficult to determine whether performance is based on comprehending or skill level, or both? In an ideal world there would be no grades since the idea of grading students on a process that is basically out of their control seems totally inequitable, but here we are.
Russ said:
…the focus of a lot of rubrics is on output…
I see this as changing. We in Denver Public Schools no longer, for two years now, assess speaking. We tried and failed. It’s a good start on moving to a complete change towards a much more heart based way of assessing children, who are so vulnerable.
Russ said:
…In an ideal world there would be no grades since the idea of grading students on a process that is basically out of their control seems totally inequitable, but here we are….
Let’s change then. Let’s change what we are doing on this. Otherwise WE are the idiots trying to do something impossible in education, and perpetuating a long and dismal failed history in WL education.
Thank you Russ. You put it out there. Now, how do we react? Do we listen to the nimrods or create something new?
jGR is something new. It is a way to evaluate that aligns with the research. It is all we need. Now all I have to do is remember what Nathaniel said and call it by the eduspeak term, the Interpersonal Skills Rubric, or ISR, so nimrod principals can understand.
If enough of us are brave, I see ISR as a tractor trailer about to go down the side of a mountain and take out as many trees of ignorance that have taken root in the L2 assessment terrain and then another one will appear and do the same thing and eventually the slope will be ready for replanting with assessment instruments that actually align with how people learn languages. When that happens, teachers will no longer think of assessment in terms of gathering data or forcing output, but in terms of observable nonverbal behaviors.
OK, in a conversation with Russ recently, he said that his department requires him to collect data on four modes: speaking, writing, reading, and listening.
Here is what I would do in that situation being the non-assessment-minded person that I am. (Literally I hate grading so much that I learned Spanish just so I could teach languages full-time and escape the data collection rat race.)
So this is dear to my heart because it is a problem Russ actually has to solve for the sake of his mental health. Next year he will be trying a lot of new stuff and I am invested in helping him tame the grading that the school is imposing on him. So please let’s put our heads together. Here is my idea.
Listening: jGR and a bank of points that last all term. Give them 100 points at the beginning of the term and deduct points if needed (of course I learned the hard way not to bludgeon them with this!) and they can make the points up by writing to you, talking with you, shaking your hand, etc.
Reading: Periodically give them a story that is typed up and have them answer open-story comprehension questions. Grade these in class in the language and hey, more CI. Maybe do this thrice per term.
Writing: Strictly improvement in number of words. Chris Stolz gives them a grade on accuracy, I think on a scale of one to three. This seems like work to me, and I hate work. Also they are often inaccurate in the first and second year. I do not care if their output is inaccurate. Not a whit. Just count the words, have the kids make a graph, and assess that a few times a term.
Speaking: I swear Russ, this is what I would do for speaking in the first years. If you ask the to tell their partner something in Spanish, walk around the room and see who is talking in Spanish and who is not. Even if their speech is a Swiss cheese of language, full of holes. All they have to do is attempt. Just like writing. You are grading them on trying. I would treat this like listening, and assign a bank of points from which you deduct. And let them make the points up by coming in to lunch or something and talking in Spanish with you.
Pleeeeease do not move to integrated assessments (which I assume are testing more than one thing at the time). Work, work, work.
My dad’s people were hog farmers from Worth County, Georgia. So trust me on this one. Since weighing the pig absolutely does NOT fatten it, why spend more time on the scale than necessary? Get those piggies back to the trough! It’s more fun watching them eat, happy, and getting fatter and fatter (IN THEIR BRAINS) anyway. I say keep it simple so you have the mental energy to show up and be cheerful and model goodwill and love for the kids. If we grump out over data, what kind of people will we be in the classroom?
This is so close to my heart because I am dismayed by the overzealous focus on data right now in our education systems, sucking all the fun, all the food from the trough. I used to spend THREE WEEKS testing when I taught Language Arts. Three weeks with no instruction!
We can fight back against that in our own small way, by making our classrooms a judgement-free place. If the admin and department chairs force us to collect data, we can push back by only collecting enough data to check the box. Data does not make kids grow. Engaging them in the language does. NOT “speaking the language to them”. ENGAGING them. If they are not riveted to the information, it is not going to help them to listen to you because their hearts won’t be into it. That’s why stories are so powerful, it is almost like we can’t help but listen to a good story.
I love this assessment package Tina. I am on the same wavelength as you. Less work = happy me = happy students. Probably going to steal this.
Coupla questions: 1) Do you have these “translated” into eduspeak for your adminZ or to communicate with others in an “official” way? Can you describe how you communicate with your students around assessment, etc. My problem is always that I am too vague: “oh don’t worry about grades, if you are showing these skills (point to the 3 skills, listen, respond, clarify) you will be fine.” And there are always the rabid point hounds, whom I always appease with “points” that I put randomly into the computer so they will be calm. Anyhoooo…I would love some more clear way to state this stuff 🙂 Thanks!
Full disclosure, I do not USE this package. (I like what you called it, like it is a shiny new product!) I use what I said below: 60% jGR and 40% Quiz Bank, both are 100 points that only get deducted from and can be earned back by the kids. So I am even lazier than Russ is let to be by his admins.
I would weight the listening heaviest (60%) and reading second heaviest (like 20%) and writing and speaking lower (10% each). That way you are lining up with what the work of a Novice is. Use the ACTFL levels of performance descriptions. Show them how little production is expected of them…they might be shocked. Mine were. Like, “What, we are only supposed to be saying LISTS of words? Wha…”
I have Grant’s poster up that states “When acquiring a language first we learn to listen then we learn to read what we heard then we learn to say what we have read and heard and then we learn to write what we have herd, read, and written.” I tell the students that they will be assessed more heavily on the first two because those are the first steps, the foundation. I point to that poster a lot since I put it up in January (thanks Grant!).
One question though. Why do we need these in admin speak? Do they require it? Or does it just make us feel better? 🙂
I tend to try to express myself in plain folks speech even though I am also good at admin speak. Being plain spoken is a gift in the world of education today and I think it makes people like talking with you more. But if your admin does not speak modern English and is monolingual in Admin, then maybe you need to translate. I winder if we really need to worry about speaking Admin, when we have ALL THE RESEARCH ON OUR SIDE. That is why Grant’s poster is so great. It distills a ton of research into a powerfully simple statement.
I will gladly help tweak any language I need to, if it helps you, jen, but I just wonder if speaking Admin is kind of a myth we tell ourselves. This just occurred to me, OK, it is just a new little thought that your request prompted. Just wondering aloud here.
Tina, we think very similarly. I would do most if not all of those strategies if I were forced to.
“Since weighing the pig absolutely does NOT fatten it, why spend more time on the scale than necessary? Get those piggies back to the trough! ”
At the advice of my department chair, I have a final (my course at middle school is high school credit). So, I give them more CI: a reading, a free-write reflection in L1 and a Mega-Dictee. Still, it may be judgment but if it’s all in bounds, the students feel happy.
Russ said “the focus of a lot of rubrics is on output.”
Exactly. That’s okay for advanced kids, but not for beginners.
So we create new rubrics. Like Ben says-we FORCE a change. It’s coming.
Check out the TPR rubric above, please make any suggestions or modifications.
It can be used as “data” because technically there are numbers, but it’s an authentic assessment-using observations performance in REAL classroom instruction. Don’t quiz kids further, just use what they are already doing in the storytelling process.
The shift in our assessments is slight: we are just capturing what we are already doing on paper (or proving that we could if we wanted to). If your principal is not asking for this data, just NOTICE but not necessarily fill out items on a rubric. Did they respond to TPR non-verbally? For all items? Sometimes? Should I slow down a lot or maybe just a little. This is already happening in our heads, but some teachers must capture this on paper.
Again, if you can get away with it do not fill out this rubric (qualitative data).
Unfortunately, some of us pioneering this new type of authentic assessment have to speak “admin talk” (Sorry, Tina, it’s a necessity for some of us at least until administrative re-education happens.) We have to go in with a rubric that shows a solid alternative to “data” from discrete-answer tests.
Then, fill in the rubric or not-depending on what you can get away with. If you are an ESL teacher or if you’re being bullied and think you may need it later, collect it in portfolios. Otherwise, just use it as a talking-point to discuss with admin what real formative assessments should look like in a beginning language classroom.
So we need rubrics for Russ for the other three areas not covered by jGR? And then he can use them like I learned to use jGR. Like a smokescreen. To cover his ass if admin needs data?
Do your admins need data or different vocabulary words? What IS admin speak?
Yes “covering our asses.” Maybe it’s just for ESL or situations where kids or teachers are being bullied though. In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be necessary.
Most importantly, these rubrics elevate what we are already doing (which can be so informal it’s hard to spot) to something superior to a test: authentic assessment.
“What IS admin speak?” Good question. They mostly speak numbers-test scores. But they can be convinced to respond to qualitative data (rubrics mostly).
Rule number one is not to say “I don’t collect data.” or “I just make up grades.” It’s like telling my kid “We aren’t eating icecream” instead of playing up a healthier alternative: “We’re eating broccoli! Yeah!” We aren’t lying to them or compromising our position, and if they need data, we can provide it, but on our terms: real data from rubrics that really demonstrate what kids are learning in our classrooms. Because that’s healtiest for our students.
(This is such a fun thread. Worth missing my lunch for.)
Tina, Claire, and everyone else,
Thanks for all of the great input! (pun intended) My dept created a rubric for Presentational mode that is not bad and my students in first year are only supposed to be at NM to pass by the end of the year, and second year is only NH by the end of the year. I don’t like tying proficiency to grade but in oregon and through actfl the standards are tied directly to prof. stage. I have spent most of the last three years working with my colleagues to decide what is appropriate and I believe that these levels are for most of my students. (I just personally don’t like assessing based on it, but I have to) I have been pushing since I joined this PLC to revamp (read throw out) our Interpersonal rubric which is currently just another Presentational Speaking rubric right now, and replacing it with jGR. I am super lazy and also not a data guy, research to guide instruction yes, but I am disorganized and easily distracted. Like the rest of you I became a teacher because I love helping kids and I love language. So the idea of having kids have a bank of points that really can only go down sounds punitive (although I know it is not) and like a lot of record keeping. I am going to try to push for jGR for next year, and I am going to take a page out of Chris Stolz’s playbook and only have one assessment in my grade book for Each: Interpretive, Interpersonal, Presentational, and the Final (mandated). Each of these will only be based on most recent assessment as they are only a snapshot of what my kids can do at any given time. I am going to weight Interpretive and Interpersonal super heavily. I guess my question is not so much about rubrics as it is about how do we evaluate listening and reading comprehension without a quiz in L1 (if we have it, ESL)? I need this for goal setting purposes and morbid curiosity. I want to know as much as I can about my instruction and effectiveness. I don’t want to know if my students are “learning” but if my input is comprehensible, or if I try new techniques I can use them for admins and colleagues and we can grow together. But most of the people here are moving away from translation and quizzes based on content of oral/aural input, so then how do we assess fairly? I guess my question is what is an “authentic assessment”?
Oh and by the way brevity is not my strong suit in case you hadn’t noticed.
Russ very important. The points go down then can be earned back. Otherwise it would be pretty darn harsh indeed.
Claire you are so much more informed on terms like “data point collection”. I am just a rubric dude.
My idea on assessment is very simple:
If our students can exhibit the interpersonal skills that have been defined by our national parent organization ACTFL as necessary in acquiring a language, then they will acquire the language. So as long as I hold my students accountable for those skills above all others, I am doing my job. I have the benefit of avoiding shaming them when I do this, since I am just observing behaviors, and not telling them that since they don’t know a certain word or verb conjugation then they are stupid at languages which is exactly the message sent to them in traditional classes by nimrods. Holding kids accountable means to me tying observable non-verbal desired skills to the grading process, since the acquiring of a language is an unconscious process and thus is out of reach of the data collectors, who think, in mightily incorrect fashion, that it is possible to actually collect data on the workings of the unconscious mind.
Nimrod – A person who thinks that we can collect data on the working of the unconscious mind in language acquisition.
Great definition of “nimrod.” You’re right about data. It’s a four-letter word in foreign language.
Data is for researchers like Krashen. Assessment is for teachers.
The only exception to this is for ESL students to keep my kids from being over-refered to Special Ed. (why are they still referring my kids?!?). They are going to collect inappropriate data, so I have to try to using portfolio assessments to counter-act this. I pander to the nimrods because I have to. Don’t do it if you don’t have to!
No one else here needs data!
(You could collect it if you needed to, but you don’t.)
I asked Krashen what made him happy. He said, “Being alone in a room with a bed covered with numbers.” But we can’t call him a nimrod certainly. His work, all those numbers he crunched, have let us out of a very dark and stinky can.
So sad to me that the data people don’t like to acknowledge the existence of an invisible world in the classroom.
We want good group dynamics in our stories. Good group dynamics and good stories happen when the teacher allows the students to just be who they are in the classroom. Then their masks come off and the teacher sees something.
Letting students just be who they are in a loving way without forcing them to behave in a way that is uncomfortable or sprinkling them with grade dust fear is far from loving. The students retaliate by shutting down. They say, “You can make me sit here but you can’t make me learn.”
So it can be said that our work involves far more than merely transmitting information to our students. It is mostly about transmitting approval, and of teaching everyone in the classroom to also approve of each other in a kind way by modeling kindness on a daily basis in class.
No grade dust fear.
Of course, Krashen is the opposite of a nimrod. I just thought I would point out that data does have a purpose-but not for classroom instruction so much. Like the “building the house” post from last month: we have to put data in the basement and use it as a foundational understanding of best practices. It can clutter our classroom, though.
“No grade dust fear.” So true. Authentic assessment is not judgement we pass on students, but it tells us what we need to change about how we teach. JGR checks that students meet us half-way, but the rest is just “transmitting approval” and informing us if we need to go slower, more scaffolding, etc.
I have had this thought more than once. Like a gazillion times. It seems to me that the only truly observable skills are the interpersonal skills. They are the only ones that the student has any shred of control over. Like, you can consciously practice these skills whereas you cannot consciously “practice understanding” but you can show understanding in multiple ways. I’ve often wondered what it would be like to assess with a huge chunk of the grade coming from ISR. Or maybe 50% ISR and 50% “performance” (meaning, showing understanding of a written text or spoken Spanish in whatever way the teacher chooses to do that).
I am no assessment expert. I am just trying to make it easy on me and on the kids. And trying to quantify something that cannot be quantified.
I do 60% jGR and 40% quick quizzes. I like quick quizzes. I feel like they are a nice wrap up and a celebration of the learning. Do you guys feel that they make your kids nervous or sad? Maybe I could re-think them. I like the feeling of everyone calling out the right answer, because they almost all get 100% all the time. Lori Swan recently said on the blog that she feels like there is air going out of the tire when she wraps up a cool story and says, “OK time for a quiz.” I can see that.
Sometimes I put in 100 points for both categories at the beginning of the term, and they just sit there, and sit there, and everyone has an A. I see no problem with that, we are all showing up for class the bet we can, in our ways.
One time this year I felt like a quick quiz was a fearful thing for one class. I had thought they’d got it but they hadn’t. I tossed it out when I saw highly engaged students getting 80% and lower.
Generally, it has struck me that many kids like a quick quiz — I teach students who are generally competitive, want high grades, and get some of their sense of worth from school (though they’d not probably admit that). I don’t really want to feed into that, but I’m expected to grade by the 4 skills plus classroom engagement (where jGR goes). Quick quizzes are listening & reading comprehension.
I always let them know I toss out a quiz that shows the class wasn’t ready for it. Ex: scores below 80% from kids I know were with us, listening, responding, getting clarification — that means if a kiddo checked out and wouldn’t do their part despite inviting them back in, and the rest of the class rocked the quiz, I allow that low grade to stand. Even so, that student is welcome to meet with me and re-do later. I always write that on low scoring quizzes.
“I always let them know I toss out a quiz that shows the class wasn’t ready for it”
That is what formative assessment is. It checks for understanding and influences instruction. It shouldn’t be graded to punish or even reward kids.
The thing is that kids have been well trained. At my site they are competitive and is they are not getting graded on the skills outlined in jGR, they will blurt, make un-necessary comments and have side conversations. Most of my kids know this but a few seem to float by.
Yeah Tina but did you see what Lori said? What happens to kids faces when the quick quiz happens? I have always done 65% ISR and 35% quick quizzes – that was the originally tested successful ratio tested here by us four years ago. BUT now that I am growing up I see that I really want to do what Lori says re the quizzes. Just sayin’.
And by the way, the “j” in jGR just called it ISR above. That makes it official. But it will always be jGR to me.
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking of – Lori’s comment on letting the air out of the balloon – whenever I give a quiz. Maybe next year they go by the wayside? Then I wonder. Could I get away with just using jGR which I can’t remember the new name of. Cause right now the quick quizzes are all I do besides that. Anyone JUST use jGR? Do I dare?
Hahaha. This is such a funny comment. I actually call it ISA “interpersonal skills assessment.” But was using ISR bc that is what everyone else called it! Hee hee. Tomato tomahto.
Yes. I have tendencies to push a bit but certainly not as much as other teachers I have observed with the canned activities where they do in groups or partners then they are called out individually in a random forced action.
The speed is much slower but I still need to work on it.
In an observation I was a little too quick because of my nervousness. Still, the students were stars. If anything this work is teaching me to be happy and in the moment.
As far as judgement on kids. Yes. Agreed. My admin knows that I assess with the long-term goals in mind in order to influence my instruction and to make students aware of the progress they have made. Nothing else really.
As far as the WL professional development I’m doing, I’ve taken nothing from it except to network and credits to move up the pay scale. I wouldn’t do it again unless I was asked to do a workshop … even then I wouldn’t want to come as an expert of anything at this point.
My site is wonderfully independent from the rest of the district. The teachers and the school enjoy an autonomy similar to a charter school. My principal mentioned jokingly that he would open one up and ask me to join as a rock-star teacher. He enjoys my work a bunch.
My deal on choral translation is not whether it works for language gains or not. That is not my primary goal in teaching, but rather my mental health. When I was always worried about best use of instructional minutes for best gains, I was, in my own teaching world, forgetting what I see now (unfortunately very late in my career) to be what I have really always wanted – a balanced day of work in a very imbalanced place of work, nay, a sick place. Now that the change has been made, I feel so much better! It wasn’t me that was crazy, it was the buildings that I spent my career in!
True. I am crazy and probably testament to what happens when you over-think assessments.
It is a nice brain break.
I think that you are all right and that choral translation is probably not best practices. We know that 98% TL would be waaay better, but I think Blaine used choral translation not just for engagement and breakdown, but also because he could.
Having shared L1 gave him a very quick, low affective filter way to ensure that his barometer student could understand. I think it’s a path of least resistance. Once you establish meaning as quickly as possible you can begin interacting with the text thru circling etc . I can’t say for sure but I assume if he taught ESOL TPRS would look different today, but just my opinion.
Choral translation, like circling, can be overused. Like anything else it can be insulting (& boring) to ask Ss to do something that we all already know they can do – The latest edu-speak asks, “Is it a Respectful Task?”
Since I teach all novices I do sometimes have bits and pieces of choral translation. It protects the slower/weaker Ss from cold call questioning – I can look at the barometer to see if they’re mouthing it or not – without any humiliation.
The one nice thing abt choral trans that other techniques don’t have is that the Ss have to manipulate the chunk of TL into comprehensible English – thereby demonstrating comprehension of that whole chunk and how all the parts fit together in the message. I sometimes see kids understanding the parts/words/phrases, but unsure of the whole line meaning. This checks, ensures and even models for kids how to process the extended chunks.
A nice point about choral translation: “This checks, ensures and even models for kids how to process the extended chunks.” There are a few types of phrases in Chinese that go in quite different order from English. Sometimes it’s all recognizable language, but the whole meaning isn’t obvious. I have sometimes pointed at which word they need first, then next, and then next for their English version. I figure eventually that’ll be absorbed, but it seems surely a later acquired thing.
Chinese language rabbit trail:
“The house that I bought” in Chinese is like this: “I buy [connector word] house” (wo mai de fangzi). So, it’s easy for people to miss the significant role that little connector word has there. Used with adjectives, they understand well. When there’s a verb in there, I almost always check for what meaning they drew out of it & get a mixed response. The 2nd and 3rd years have about as much consistency as the 1st years on this aspect of Chinese. I think it’s really interesting. (The 3rd year group never saw these super-common phrases in their first year, as far as I can tell.)
This is a perfect example of why circling is not dead. It is still the key to a successful CI classroom.
Yeah and Joey I probably need to explain myself on saying PQA is dead which offended Diana enough to send my an email and the same here with circling. We both know that I like to say stuff to piss people off. of course those two things are not dead. That whole article two months ago was to get people off of doing it mechanically and like robots. We have talked about this far too much to let this be a point of contention or confusion between us. And you were always right about the L1 use in the classroom. We can hug it all out in TN unless you get down out of the mountains in June or July. Let me know. What I like about our Denver based original group is that we can actually get into near fist fights about detail (I’ll never forget your 2:00 a.m. phone call to Krashen) and still know that we are on exactly the same page. I hope you pull some teachers up there to Aspen, by the way. You’ve been a busy boy since your DPS bail out!