This is some seriously thought out stuff – something we can all use in our buildings – from Brian and adds greatly to the standards based grading thread:
Hi Ben,
I’ve attached what is essentially my current thinking on grading as it relates to standards based instruction in general and, more specifically, the learning goals and SCALES that I am required to make and post in my classroom now. Please forgive the somewhat terse writing style – this is essentially me talking to me. Even though the writing seems tedious with regard to details, I think the essence of the “three scales” (based on interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational) and how they could be related to grading does fit the bill of ultra-simple. If fact, I don’t think it changes anything we do, but just articulates things a bit more (i.e. the central importance of interpersonal communication, the daily goal of interpretation, and the non-forced and therefore non-graded presentational output.) I hope you’ll let me know what you think. Nothing is ever set in stone for me and I love simplicity slap-downs 🙂 I just have to keep the bosses happy too with all this scale stuff they are making us do…
Brian
General Goal: Keep grading scheme ultra-simple. Still have a clearly articulated scale of expectations/goals for my students as they develop their language proficiency.
Specific Goal: Develop Marzano-type scales (0-4 with 3 as the desired, achieveable level, 4 as advanced) that I am REQUIRED now to use in my class AND be able to EASILY do two things with these scales:
– be able to EASILY write daily learning goals (SWBAT) that are based on these scales and faithfully represent what we are doing in class each day.
– be able to construct an ULTRA-SIMPLE grading scheme based on these scales.
—-
The Three Scales
The following scales that I have developed I believe accurately represent what I PERSONALLY see as the REAL goals of my class. I feel good about these scales. Each level on these scales assumes application of all lower levels (i.e. student at level 3 meets criteria of levels 1 and 2):
1) INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION – SCALE
a.k.a Flying, Quid Pro Quo, Engaging in Conversation, SPIN, Focus on the exchange of meaning as opsed to focus on language structure, CI in L2
0 not fully present, unnecessary L1
1 being fully present
2 signal confusion (the ‘no comprehension’ response)
3 respond appropriately to communicated message (reactive response)
4 initiate conversation (non-reactive, non-forced speech output)
Notes: “fully present” defined as: nothing in desk or laps, sits up, straight shoulders, clear eye contact. “unnecessary L1” defined as any L1 use not elicited by the teacher. Understanding on the part of the student begins to occur above level 2. “respond appropriately” defined as any L2 response or any teacher elicited L1 response (i.e. translations of individual words or what has just been said in L2). Level 3 represents achieveable, daily goal. Level 4 is desired but non-forced L2 output.
2) INTERPRETIVE LISTENING AND READING – SCALE
a.k.a following the thread of ideas, focus on meaning, the GOing somewhere via communication, understanding meaning because language structures become transparent
0 – no evidence of interpretive listening or reading
1 – can infer the main idea from only understanding some details (>20%)
2 – main idea and details understood at least half of the time (>50%)
3 – main idea and most details understood (>80%)
4 – automaticity in interpretive listening and reading (no conscious L1 effort to understand)
Notes: This scale represents ALL student effort to understand in L2. If student is listening to L2 with no opportunity to interact with/question/signal the person speaking, then student performance on scale is completely dependent on his or her level of L2 proficiency relative to that of the person speaking. If student is in a conversation (ex. teacher-led CI storytelling class), then, as per the above INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SCALE above, the student, through signaling that he doesn’t understand, can take ownership over the pace of the conversation, slow it down, and in this way have more control over how successful he can be at INTERPRETIVE LISTENING. Level 3 is therefore an ACHIEVEABLE goal for every student, every day. The teacher should go SLOW enough that level 4 transparency also becomes possible for students to experience each day. Class choral readings of L2 texts with related PQA also fall under the idea that level 3 understanding is possible, because reading days are still essentially interpersonal communication days.
3) PRESENTATIONAL SPEAKING AND WRITING – SCALE
a.k.a Speaking or writing without the quid pro quo of an L2 conversation. AND: I will include here also the non-reactive, non-forced, self-initiated L2 output referred to on level 4 of the INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SCALE above. This is becuase these strings of L2 output are not just short, reactive responses in L2, but longer (if only slightly) strings of L2 whose comprehensibility is depenent completely on the student’s proficiency – i.e. the student is creating meaning on her own without the chance to ride in the wake of an interlocutor’s words.
0 – no evidence of non-reactive, non-forced, self-initiated L2 output
1 – aware of our “language proficiency ASSUMPTIONS” [see notes below], but little or no output (too hesitant)
2 – makes effort to minimize hesitancy and pauses (student is trying: he is beyond the no GO of level 1) but L2 output still may be made up of single words or memorized phrases or just parroting what he just heard recently
3 – makes effort to combine and recombine *in NEW ways* words he knows and has heard in order to communicate *HIS OWN* ideas (build L2 meaning through L1 conscious effort)
4 – communicates L2 meaning with automaticity
Notes:
Our “language proficiency assumptions”: this refers to the shortfalls or weaknesses of novice and intermediate speakers of L2 according to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. I think students should clearly understand (hence I put it as the basis of the foundational level 1) these so they know that I know that these weaknesses are normal for their proficiency level. The “assumptions” are: You have a limited vocabulary. You will commit basic errors in grammar, word choice, punctuation and spelling. You may be misunderstood and will have to try to reformulate and/or repeat your message. You will show hesitancy and pause frequently. Your pronunciation will be greatly affected by your first language. You will NOT normally initiate conversation, but will prefer to just react or answer to the speech of others. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS NORMAL AND OKAY. Once the student is aware of these assumptions and is therefore aware of the fact that the teacher is not have unreasonable expectations of grammatical perfection, then he can loosen up and begin to work on getting to level 2: to try. The student will (for example, in an attempt to initiate his own speech or when doing a free write) try not to be so hesitant and just let go and try to speak or write without worrying so much. Level 3 is the goal: the student get the inner drive to try to take what he knows and combine and recombine those words or ideas into new cimbinatiions that express HIS OWN meaning. Level 4 automaticity is possible when the student is very familiar with the topic at hand.
—
All learning goals that I have with my CI/TPRS teaching seem to gel nicely with these scales. I can post the scales as required and make reference to them with the students (also required) for their own, informal self-evaluation.
—
Grading:
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SCALE becomes basically a scale to grade their behavior/participation in class. I don’t know yet HOW to formally keep track of it, but when I do, that could be 50% of their grade – literally “doing their 50%” every day. Its the SPIN of flying.
INTERPRETIVE LISTENING AND READING SCALE: can be used to grade end-of-class comprehension quizzes and paragraph translations on reading days. 50% of grade. THIS proves the GO of flying (they “went” somewhere in L2 – they understood).
PRESENTATIONAL SPEAKING AND WRITING SCALE: 0% weight in grading OR as extra credit? OR scale is put up just for in-class, informal, student self-evaluations? Output is not forced, so this has no weight in grade. Goal is to make students aware of the eventual, non-forced goal of output.