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
Great 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
20 thoughts on “Great Rubric”
Fabulous – very helpful. I’m going to use it almost as is. Thanks, jen.
Just to clarify, I did not make this up. It is kind of a combination of a couple rubrics that were posted on here by Robert and I think the other one was ??? Nathan maybe ??? I am so sorry I can’t remember, but there were two or three very similar ones, except one had a 0-4 scale and the other one had a 1-5. I kind of randomly combined them so that I could “equate” our A-F system. It is the best I could come up with, and I have not really figured out the absence policy. I will probably end up winging it, because after awhile it just gets ridiculous, with sports and field trips and in-school concerts and music lessons, etc.
I don’t know why I made it all caps! It looks funny. Haha Freudian slip. I am yelling and trying to intimidate everyone through my RUBRICCCC 😉
One question I have is about the scale, though. Most of the rubrics I have seen are more about standards…”meets standard” “approaches standard” etc. and we are supposed to be teaching to the standard, which for some ppl is a B and for others is an A. Could someone remind me of the different arguments for that? Maybe it doesn’t matter in my case since we don’t have standards-based grading in our school. On the other hand, I would like to understand it better. I assume I would use the ACTFL standards / descriptors??? But which ones?
Knowing this community (those of you who have sent in bios, at least! hint!), I would guess that Robert and Nathan and any others wouldn’t object to our calling this jen’s rubric. Clarice wrote our Rigor poster in the same way (see updated Resources page on this site for that).
The main thing is that we have it. And I kind of like the yelling – it’s that good, actually, and I will definitely use it until I see some reason not to, which probably ain’t gonna happen.
Your comment about the hopelessness of keeping up with absences is so true. I just plan on using exactly the same policy for tardies and absences as the latest cell phone policy I stole from Robert. Many of my kids had jobs last year, and I kid you not some of them tried to do both! I did such a bad job of tracking those kids!
I hope Robert addresses your last question there, jen. For my part, I don’t really care if the word standards is in my rubric. It just gets kind of nutty after awhile. I like what you wrote in large part bc of its simplicity. Parents don’t care about standards anyway. And if they do, what you have up there in that rubric certainly meets standards.
We’ve come a long way since last May (2011) when Robert first raised this titanically important issue in assessment – this whole thing about student accountability in terms of SHOWING UP FOR CLASS and their behavior in terms of the Classroom Rules (see Resources page/posters) and in terms of WHAT WE NEED THEM TO DO in order for the comprehension based approach that we use to work.
We now are using the Three Modes and are aligning with ACTFL (for real, not fake ACTFL alignment) and with the research in a much more solid way. The possibility for redirecting and bending the spirit of the Three Modes to one’s own (traditional) needs still exists, and many teachers who don’t like the looks of the tsunami coming in on them will now spend another year defending what they do by bending the Three Modes to fit their own definitions, but that won’t slow down the wave. They will be taken out to sea. Sorry, just sayin’ what’s happening. This change is about one thing for me – giving kids dignity and a reason to believe in life and to feel successful in an area where few have ever felt real success – and if a few hundred thousand language teachers get washed out to sea in the process, they will find out how strong they can swim and may even find the right profession for them, one in which they don’t put down kids for a living. For more on this phenomenon of kids just giving up on languages, see the article referred to here earlier in another comment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/university-clearing/9479770/A-level-results-2012-foreign-languages-need-eurozone-style-bail-out.html
Thanks for this, Jen!
I will definitely use this. I had planned on giving students a daily assessment in “interpersonal communication,” but hadn’t worked out the specific descriptors yet. This is great.
My biggest concern is record-keeping and making sure I write down the grades during or right after every single class. I think it will have to be during, before the end of the period, because somehow it never happens after the bell rings.
For absences, what I want to do is treat it like a daily quiz might be treated in another class…… Of course you can make up the missed grade for an excused absence! No sorry, we can’t do it during class because it’s “interpersonal” and my person is busy doing this class right now. Come to my office hours and we’ll do it then. It will only take 15 minutes because it’s a little more intense with fewer people.
That’s my current thinking anyway. I usually announce that I’m available after school certain days and by appt, but hardly anyone comes for extra help. I’d love to have a steady stream of students coming in for extra input. There’s no way to make up exactly the content of the missed class, so I figure that I can have a 15 minute input session with as many students as come on a give day, even if they missed different levels on different days. I also suspect that many just won’t bother, as it’s only 5 points.
Jessica
I really like this and wish I had had it years ago. It is so true that students that demonstrate those behaviors will progress and learn and acquire the language. I like the way it makes it clear that we want this behavior not because it makes life easier for us, but because it’s a skill the student needs to have mastered in order to progress.
Thanks so much for this! It is so clear and succinct! I am going to try to incorporate it without using it as a grade. (I know myself and I will never keep up with tracking it all!!) But that doesn’t mean that it won’t be able to be a part of my classroom…thinking, thinking, thinking….
with love,
Laurie
Jen,
Thanks for coming up with this. I like this, and thought about using a 5 point scale as well. My questions are what do you do with the talented but distracted student – I have kids who can speak all the time in Spanish, but will engage in side conversations – so they are level 5 for spontaneous output, but level 1 for “behavior”. How do we deal with that?
For the grading scale, I have to enter numbers in my grading program, not letters, so I would do
5 – 100%
4- 95 %
3 – 87%
2 – 79%
1 – 72%
0 – 60% (or just as a zero…. not sure here – but to not kill their averages, I would think 60%
I think automatically putting in a 3 or 4 each day, and only changing it when seeing changes from the norm is the easiest way to stay on top of it on a daily basis.
5 ALL SKILL IN 4, PLUS NON-FORCED EMERGING OUTPUT
4 (A) RESPONDS AUTOMATICALLY, IN TL, TO ALL INPUT, INCLUDING USING “STOP” FOR CLARIFICATION; NEVER ENGAGES IN SIDE CONVERSATIONS
3 (B) RESPONDS REGULARLY IN TL, INCONSISTENT USE OF “STOP” SIGNAL ; OCCASIONAL UNNECESSARY ENGLISH; RARELY ENGAGES IN SIDE CONVERSATIONS
2 (C) ATTENTIVE BUT DOESN’T RESPOND; REFUSAL TO 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
Thank you David, for the numerical translation. I think I will use this 🙂 I agree with your 60% for F. I don’t see a reason for putting a student in a hole so deep that it is literally impossible to dig him/ herself out.
Here’s what I use. It’s not nearly as technical. Feel free to grab and change it to fit your needs. david
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BuPRw0yACtewc2DrLFZOhZk0dgeEUi2iwLzHYXMIols/edit
Ooooh! LOVELOVELOVE!!! I am going to steal this fo’ sho’! I love how it is basically a restatement of the rules, with the same wording, but you’ve translated it into clear student-friendly language. My self-eval. sheets are way too wordy and confusing. I know this because kids always ask “what do you mean by this…?” This is perfect! THANK YOUUUUU!!!!!!!!
Yes, thanks! Very clear wording. I was thinking of creating a self-evaluation of some kind and you’ve got a great one.
Thanks for this! I am curious about the “50% of grade.” Does that mean 50% of the daily assessment? If so, what is the other 50%?
The 50% means (at least today how I am envisioning it) 50% of their total grade. The other 50% comes from the more quantitative / content assessments like quizzes and dictation and whatever other interpretive assessments I come up with. So those grades are more obvious. I wanted to have as clear and “quantitative” a rubric as I could for the interpersonal skills.
I am planning on doing the daily grades as several people suggested, as David outlines above: assuming everyone has a 3 and then marking just those who exceed or fall short. I never claim that grades are completely quantitative data, much to the dismay of the general public. Oh well. “The general public” is welcome to try to run a classroom 🙂
I’m actually not sure how I will use this system in my upper levels. It seems very clear (ish) for levels 1-2, where I am focusing exclusively on input. I think it will work the same for my level 4 at least until we cycle through enough years that the incoming kids have had 3 years of CI. For this transition, I think my level 4 kids are more like level 2+ in terms of acquired language. We’ll see. I still want those kids to show up and engage, so for now I will use the same system. There will be more output, and that will fall into the content / quiz half of the grade. Such an adventure!
I also feel like I need some sort of clause / system like that power scale that someone talked about a few days ago, because the semester grade and the year grade are not really averages of the quarter grades. But that is too technical for me right now. Just gotta get this written into my syllabus since it is due Friday!
I think for the fast processor / emerging output kids I would hold the line on side conversations. A side conversation interrupts the group conversation, no matter what the language. And it is rude. It’s a life skill to learn some basic etiquette and real communication skills. ! I often tell my students that the worst offenses of the side conversation rule (not to mention the texting / online shopping) happen at staff meetings. I am not kidding. I am trying to walk the walk on this. For me the bottom line is the shift in thinking about skill development for the interpersonal assessment, rather than simply “participation” or “behavior,” which can be murky. Robert was very clear in his statement that we are looking at “behaviors” and “demonstrated skill” not “behavior.” This distinction was like a light bulb for me. And it does seem that over the long haul, if kids develop these skills, they will acquire more language and “succeed” in the more traditional assessments. So their grade will go up, which is what they want. Just a hunch. Maybe I am thinking too simplistically.
So, others will need to weigh in on this, as I am a total newbie in terms of being a hard ass on the rules but that is my big thing in the next few weeks. Bring it! Off the top of my head, I think we build in some partner sharing time to allow kids to talk. I sometimes do a quick one-minute “tell your partner x / retell the story / answer a question.” I am full aware that “partner time” is code for “speak English and get off task” but I have had success with this in very short chunks while I walk around and eavesdrop. And also there is the deal you have with these kids that you will rely on them to respond with more detail and complexity, so you highlight their skills while giving the rest of the class another rep.
1. Here is Robert’s distinction between a participation grade (which aligns with nothing) and a grade that aligns with the Interpersonal Skill of the Three Modes of Communication:
The grade (a grade that can be accurately called a Communicative Competence Grade – I just made that up) is “based on a set of observable criteria (behaviors) that demonstrate communicative competency based on the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for Grades K-12.
If you need it and can’t find it, look in the Parent Conference category. That is where I want to be able to find it so that I can immediately read it to parents when I explain to them that what is important in my language classes and in the workplace of the future is the ability to communicate an idea with another person in a civilized and respectful way, and not anything else like how high your GPA is or how much money is in your bank account or how much you can blow people back and force your opinions on them.
2. Love this point:
…a side conversation interrupts the group conversation, no matter what the language. And it is rude….
So that is why in my own Three and Done system this year I will include:
– cell phone use
– tardies
– absences
– chatting with a neighbor
It keeps it very simple for me.
3. Just a question jen and David are you really going to give daily grades as per:
…I am planning on doing the daily grades as several people suggested, as David outlines above: assuming everyone has a 3 and then marking just those who exceed or fall short….
That means you have to prepare readings, grade and enter quizzes, do all the other things we do and now give a daily grade as well, which means thinking about each kid’s performance that day? I couldn’t do that.
4. And one other thing, jen, I think it is great to weigh in at 50/50 between Communicative Competence as per your new rubric and Quick Quizzes and other things. It is a good balance. Last year I had it at 25/75 CC grade to QQ grade, but since all you had to do was listen to get a decent daily quiz grade on the content of that class, it was a bit easy and the grades were too puffed up. If we use your CC rubric – Robert is there a better term? I don’t really know what to call the Not Participation grade – in an honest way, we will constantly be forcing better and better alignment with the Interspersonal Skill, and it is a grade that will definitely have some teeth in it with real observable results in the classroom. I think this is where David was going with this when he first brought the whole thing up.
I’m just going to throw out a thought here…I’m not trying to throw a wrench in the plan…but to give you something to think about before it becomes a problem. A child with attention issues is never going to do well with this rubric. Ever. How can we create an atmosphere of success for someone whose is not physically wired to do this…if s/he will be graded every day for his/her ability to “behave” according to this rubric?
with love,
Laurie
Jen,
Thanks for putting this together. I guess having a 5 point scale gives you a little more flexibility than a 4 point scale.
I have been stressing to my classes these past two days of school (our first days) that this is an interpersonal grade based on their interactions with me, not just a participation grade. So far so good. I also have not been very strong or steady on the discipline in the past, but have really tried to crack the whip this year early on, and am seeing very positive results. Clarity, consistency, and consequences are what the kids respond to. At this point my kids have been so good that I would the majority of them at the 4 level, so that might be my baseline.
Laurie, good question on the ADHD kids, and I think that is an important conversation to have. Is that a case where you can come up with individual strategies for them to use (doodling, or some other non-distracting repetitive movement (knitting??) which allows the body to move without distracting the mind), while still holding them to the active participation and use of a clarification signal? Or does that go against the spirit of the idea which is to promote and hold all students to certain behaviors.
great discussion….
The rubric I used last year for the interpersonal mode is under assessment/Robert Harrell/ interpersonal communication rubric 1. I adapted it from Ben and the discussion last year.
I kept track in a log of students who went above or below the B level and then I had them fill out a self-assessment rubric every 4 weeks and then I adjusted that grade, based on their comments and my log entries. This was 20% of my grade and there were just 3 entries of 10 points each each trimester. It worked so well for me that I am going to do it again this year, but instead of a log, I am just going to put pluses and minuses on a seating chart because I will have a lot more students this year, being more than full-time. If they don’t have pluses or minuses, they will usually get a B.
https://benslavic.com/blog/2011/10/31/interpersonal-communication-rubric/
I’ve been giving daily participation grades for years, only now they will be Interpersonal Communication grades. I print out attendance sheets for the week, and at the end of every class take a minute to go down the list and enter a number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4). The weekly average goes into the grade book. It IS a bit cumbersome, but worth it for keeping the kids accountable and for having “data” to justify their grade. It’s really important to do it at the end/right after each class (which can be a challenge – but honestly, just going down the list takes a few seconds, and if a student is trying to talk to me I just hold up a finger until I’m done and it’s all good).
Wow! Great to fine tune this!
Laurie, thanks so much for reminding us of those kids. I wonder if I could still use this rubric but have a one-on-one deal with those individuals–I can picture two of them that I had last year and will have again–allowing them to do something with their hands and/or make sure they have specific classroom jobs, choose them as actors, etc, which I have found nearly eliminates any issues. I’d love any ideas on this.
As far as the documentation—ummm….ideally I will do what Kelly describes above. I will *intend* to do this daily, with the reality being that there will be missed days. Oh well. I will do the best I can. I have a dismal history with this type of thing, so all I can do is try it and if it ends up being more of a once-twice a week thing, that will still be better than trying to remember it randomly or at the quarter.
This will require me to have a strict ending time to do these little last minute wrap-ups, so I will be sure to have a student job that is the timekeeper. I also plan to do the periodic self-reflections as per Melanie, and will make any adjustments based on a conversation with the student. This could also help with the ADHD kids in terms of the rubric and of the student trying his/her best. I also have a colleague/pal who is an ADHD specialist so I can send her my rubric and ask how I might modify for these kids. I will share that info after I talk to her, but not for about 10 days as I will be offline as of this evening.
Just for clarity for those interested, here is my updated version on jen’s original document:
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.
3 (B/C) RESPONDS REGULARLY IN TL OR VISUALLY, INCONSISTENT USE OF “STOP” SIGNAL.
2 (C/D) ATTENTIVE BUT DOESN’T RESPOND; DOESN’T USE “STOP” SIGNAL.
1 (D/F) NOT ATTENTIVE: NO EYE CONTACT OR EFFORT.
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).
Conversion scale:
• 5 = 95% and above
• 4 = 85% – 94%
• 3 = 75% – 84%
• 2 = 65% – 74%
• 1 = 55% – 64%
• 0 = 0%