Just a repost. I know people are using this from last week and I thought I would make it nice and accessible. I’ll be showing this bad boy to my students tomorrow so that they can understand how a full half of their grade will be determined. In my opinion, it really does accurately reflect the spirit of the concept of interspersonal communication as I see it and wish it to happen in my own classroom.
Just one important note. I will take out the parts in orange. For me the rubric is stronger without that part. The big one here is the use or non-use of the stop signal (which for me this year is that move over the head that people were using in Breckenridge). But that is just me and my own student population. I also changed the grade definition ranges. The blue is where I made a minor change to jen’s origninal document.
Now it’s kind of late in the evening here so there may be some inconsistencies in this so if you see any pls. let me know. Here it is:
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RUBRIC (used in daily assessment: 50% of grade)
5 ALL SKILL IN 4, PLUS NON-FORCED EMERGING OUTPUT
4 (A/B) RESPONDS AUTOMATICALLY, IN TL, TO ALL INPUT, INCLUDING USING “STOP” FOR CLARIFICATION; NEVER ENGAGES IN SIDE CONVERSATIONS
3 (B/C) RESPONDS REGULARLY IN TL OR VISUALLY, INCONSISTENT USE OF “STOP” SIGNAL ; OCCASIONAL UNNECESSARY ENGLISH; RARELY ENGAGES IN SIDE CONVERSATIONS
2 (C/D) ATTENTIVE BUT DOESN’T RESPOND; DOESN’T USE “STOP” SIGNAL FREQUENT UNNECESSARY ENGLISH; OCCASIONALLY ENGAGES IN SIDE CONVERSATIONS
1 (D/F) NOT ATTENTIVE: NO EYE CONTACT OR EFFORT; CONSTANT UNNECESSARY ENGLISH; FREQUENT SIDE CONVERSATIONS
0 (F) ABSENT WITHOUT EXCUSE
*ATTENTIVE = NOTHING ON DESK OR LAP; SITS UP; MAINTAINS EYE CONTACT WITH SPEAKER; LISTENS WITH INTENT TO UNDERSTAND; RESPONDS TO STATEMENTS /QUESTIONS WITH SHORT ANSWERS OR VISUALLY; DOESN’T BLURT
**NOTE THAT DEMONSTRATION OF SKILLS AT LEVEL 4 DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE STUDENTS’ RATE OF PROCESSING, OR THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK OR WRITE, BUT ON THE STUDENTS DEMONSTRATED USE OF THE SKILLS TO NEGOTIATE MEANING IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE…THUS STUDENTS CAN EARN “A” ON INTERPERSONAL SKILLS NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY / READINESS TO OUTPUT. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT CONSISTENT USE OF THESE SKILLS ENSURES THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION (which precedes output)
———————————————————————————————————
And here is a conversion scale on this from Robert, which I also tweaked (in blue) for whoever wants it. When he had to adapt his SBA scores to a traditional percentage grade, he used the following: 100 (manually entered)
- 5 = 95% and above
- 4 = 85% – 94%
- 3 = 75% – 84%
- 2 = 65% – 74%
- 1 = 55% – 64%
- 0 = 0%
I think I can use this in my school. I really like the way the C is determined. If a kid is attentive but does not respond in an active way, not necessarily using words, but showing up for class (as we have discussed many times here), then they can have a grade around 65% no problem. But don’t ask me to give them a higher a grade than that – they are just sitting in class and kind of being there but not really showing up. The C is that kind of kid’s highest grade possibility, unless they ace all the quizzes and then they can have a lovely B.
Laurie’s point a few weeks ago about kids with attention deficit issues (from the original thread “Great Rubric”) is of course a factor that must be mentioned, but for me, I’ll just differentiate on those kids. I always do anyway.
What I have needed for my general student population all these years is the rubric above and the conversion scale below it. I think. Then the daily quizzes will move the grade up or down and I feel like I have a grading system that is better than last year.
But, again, I haven’t actually used it yet, so we shall see. We always shall see. It feels right, though. I think I might figure this stuff out when I turn 200 years old. Maybe.
[Note: the first 19 comments below were in response to jen’s original post and not to the altered one above.]