To view this content, you must be a member of Ben's Patreon at $10 or more
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.
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
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.
12 thoughts on “Interpersonal Communication Rubric 1”
Replying to my own posts…this can’t be healthy…
Just playing devil’s advocate with myself here…fitting day for that:
So the scale seems fine and dandy, but how to do the next thing that my admin. team in their infinite wisdom is asking us all to do: to use those scales to actually collect informal and formal data…and to even have these results posted as a graph…hmm. [insert here Slavic-style rant on the idiocy of the number crunchers who pose as leaders in education]
Any suggestions on real ways to use the above scale to actually collect data (individual student data or even perhaps overall class data) and not break from Our CI First Commandment, “Keep it Simple – Anything else is a loss of time for CI”…??
I do remember the recent post about only having to really pay attention to those that deviate from the norm (norm here probably defined as going back and forth between levels 2-3…that is, keeping afloat in the incoming waves of CI)…maybe that’s the way: no real data collecting, but just hit those that refuse to move past level 0?
Finally: Ben, you recently mentioned that your 25% participation category was essentially bogus…is that what this type of Interpersonal Communication Scale/Rubric becomes as well, or do you think there is a worthwhile (key word) way to use this scale to actually measure/quantify something? I guess what I am asking is this: for the Interpretive Mode, we’ve got simple numbers coming from quick quizzes – can anyone see any simple numbers that could be collected with this Interpersonal scale?
Okay, I just asked the same question like five different ways. No more responding to my own posts…
Brian, the reason that I called my participation grade bogus was because it is. I use it to manipulate the quick quizzes. If a kid does really well as a human being, but not well on the quizzes, then they get a higher participation grade and it pulls the grade up, which I want. You should see the kid’s human reaction when I do that. It is so nice to genuinely honor their work in class with the A and damn the torpedos with ADMIN labels. If the kid doesn’t show up in the human way in class, but have high comprehension grades, then I torpedo them. This used to be improper until Harrell started reading the ACTFL guidelines more carefully than anyone else.
In the above grading scenario, however, the grade is still bogus, having the quality of water and not defensible at all in the eyes of AA’s (asshole administrators whose friend’s daughter in your class got all A’s in middle school but now must be forced to become human in your class and hence the “concern” of the AA).
Now, with this new initiative in aligning with the three modes, the grade is defensible because it aligns with standards. The little robot girl, bless her shortened childhood heart, cannot keep behaving like a robot now. She cannot continue to look everywhere for things that you are doing wrong, so that she can tell her controlling parent about you so she doesn’t have to feel the burn of becoming more human, of actually interacting artfully with the teacher.
When I tell the class what a 3 (proficiency) means in so many words, then they know that that behavior will get that grade, and it won’t be a watery and somewhat underhanded participation grade with no clear definition, but a real grade connected to standards.
Brian here are your definitions, with mine below them in italics. I don’t know which are best or most useful – we can all write our own. That is a discussion for another day and why Matava, always on point, asked you to define your interpersonal rubric. We can do that later. Again, here are your rubric descriptors for the Interpersonal Mode from that big – hugely important – post of a few days ago:
(https://benslavic.com/blog/2011/10/30/brian-on-standards-based-grading/):
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)
And here are the ones that you provided in this different scale to Anne today:
0 – not attentive, uses English unnecessarily
1 – fully attentive (Ben’s rules about nothing on desk, laps, clear eyes, etc.), and NO unnecessary use of English
2 – signals when he/she does not understand (perfect from the first day to the last for all levels)
3 – able to respond to L2 (NOTE: this does NOT say able to respond IN L2 – again, following Ben’s original ideas, students can always respond with up to 2 words in English. What…they don’t understand? Then that is why level 2 says use the signal…EVERYONE, including language level 1 students, can get to level 3 on this scale, becuase signalling (level 2 on the scale) insures that the teacher never goes out of bounds. Signalling gives them ownership of the pace of the class. From there, level 3 says they ALL can repond. Yes/No answers, Either/Or answers, 2-word English answers, etc.
4 – this is speaking in L2 that is non-forced, non-reactive (i.e. not an elicited response – student spoke up in L2 becuase they wanted to). This does not imply long strings of L2 – may just be a few words.
Here they are tweaked by me, for no other reason than they reflect my own thinking on this:
0 – student is not mentally present, uses unnecessary L1, does not communicate to the instructor when confused, does not participate in a way that is good for the group, is largely mentally absent, does not follow the posted Classroom Rules. Applied to the school grading scale, this is an F.
1 – student does not yet fully understand his/her role in class, that learning a language is a reciprocal and participatory activity requiring that the student be consciously involved in the class, trying to understand the language, communicating when he/she doesn’t understand, helping the teacher and the rest of the class in the process. Student does not does signal confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. Follows the Classroom Rules, but minimally. Applied to the school grading scale, this is an D.
2 – student is able to do the above described behaviors, but minimally. Student can and does signal confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. Follows the Classroom RulesApplied to the school grading scale, this is an C.
3 – student is able to do the above described behaviors. Student responds appropriately to communicated messages (reactive response). Student frequently signals confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. THIS IS PROFICIENCY in this communicative mode. Applied to the school grading scale, this is a B.
4 – (Brian I changed the 4 grade most, to avoid any mention of output in an interpersonal grade): – student effortlessly does the above described behaviors. Student responds appropriately to all communicated messages (reactive response). Student always signals confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. THIS IS ABOVE PROFICIENCY in this communicative mode. Applied to the school grading scale, this is an A.
Now, these will certainly change. And we need rubric descriptors for the other two modes of communicationas well. But this is a start for me, anyway.
And I LOVE the way Brian wants to keep this roughly the same thoughout all levels. Because there ARE NO LEVELS in language acquisition, just time exposed to the language.
That last question is really at the heart of this thing. I have been waiting for that question, not knowing what it was or how it would fit into the overall discussion, but seeing it now, I get it. Of particular value to me is this sentence from you Brian:
…for the Interpretive Mode, we’ve got simple numbers coming from quick quizzes – can anyone see any simple numbers that could be collected with this Interpersonal scale…?
Yes, of course, the Interpersonal Communication rubric becomes valid, can actually measure something. Let’s re-read what Robert wrote about two weeks ago, which I really consider key:
…what I am finding is that if I start all students at Proficient and get buy-in for playing the game, I need to keep track only of significant deviations from that. The stars will stick in your mind because they are the stars and will get Advanced grades. The students who are quiet will probably evaluate themselves more harshly than you will, so giving them a better grade than they think they earned will not be a problem (besides, discussing the discrepancy gives you an opportunity to tell them you appreciate their quiet participation). That leaves a very small group in each class (usually only 1 or 2) that you need to document. It doesn’t hurt to keep a journal of some sort in which you note behavioral issues each day….
Now I would rather be doing something else than keeping a journal on my kids’ behaviors. That sounds extreme to me. I would rather give the grade because I am the expert. I am the teacher. No mind numbed number cruncher will tell me how to evaluate in this key area. And it’s definitely not a participation grade, it’s where the kid stacks up on a proficiency scale, where the 3 is in my mind about an 80, if you will, and a 4 is over 90, and a 2 is something like a C and a 1 like a D, as expressed above, and the most important O is where Robert guides us to NAIL the kids who do nothing to help the group. I really really really like the way Robert says that above in the first scale he offered, because it is spot on, and because it is simple and very little work work for me, right?
Maybe I am oversimplifying things, I tend to do that these days. I just need it to be simple now. I no longer want to think too much about what I am going to do in the classroom, and justify a grade with all sorts of little rubrics and numbers and shit (when the grade probably would be more accurate if I just pulled a number out of my head, honestly). When I plan too much and grade too much, then instead of going into each class fresh and open to what will happen if I just trust in life to happen, trusting in the pedagogical approach we use (the subtitle of which is “Quit Trying to be a Teaching Star, You Meathead, and let Conversation Emerge in its Own Way, You Fool!”), then I lose the pulse of life in that action of getting stuck in my head. Pretty gnarly rant there but hey it’s Hallow’s Eve. To return to the long lost point, the rubric you offer fits my plan perfectly, Brian. I dump the participation grade, and fire up the Three Modes descriptors. I like the numbers, they target proficiency, like you said in another comment somewhere, between 2 and 3, I can award those to kids BASED ON WHAT I SEE IN CLASS and if some administrator questions their validity I will patiently explain what the Three Modes are, or at least what they mean to me, as per:
https://benslavic.com/blog/2011/10/26/what-the-three-modes-mean-to-me/
and I will NEVER ALLOW AN ADMINISTRATOR TO QUESTION MY AUTHORITY IN EVALUATING KIDS. I just won’t let them question me, for the reason that they don’t know what I know about my kids in my own classroom.
I LIKE THE NUMBERS, Brian. Thanks for them. If we can hammer something out on this first one, the other two will be very similar, as per what you said to Anne. And please, feel free to burst my bubble on this possibly too simplistic view of grading (I’m feeling that some people who read how I grade are thinking it’s too simple. Fine, pay me over $200K per year and I’ll show you some serious shit numbers). But, at my current salary and with my colleagues being laid off all over the country, I’m not going to take any shit from anyone on how I evaluate my students. And, one more thing. Once all of the grading is done, I would strongly suggest that most teachers go back in for one last look at the grades before posting them, and, there at the last minute, adjust the grades up or down to reflect if they like the kid or not. We are such hypocrites. Hmmm. A rather ranty night here. Oh well.
Oh boy. I think I’ve been going about things incorrectly. Please be gentle when you rip this apart…’cuz I think you’re gonna…
I found this rubric on the moreTPRS list serve:
Do you….
make eye contact with me at least 80% of the time?
respond with enthusiasm when appropriate?
suggest cute/interesting answers to my questions?
listen with the intent to understand?
show up for class on time?
sit in a way that showed respect for the learning process?
speak English at the wrong times?
tell me when you didn’t understand?
observe our bathroom policy?
bring a positive attitude to class?
There are 10 of those. So for each positive one the student does, I give 1 point. Therefore each week they get x/10. That value goes into the grade system under the (note: department’s decision) 25% Participation grade. Uh oh….??
Jennifer,
Since I have been one of the driving forces behind the Interpersonal Communication Rubric, I’ll comment.
We already have variants on this, and that’s fine. I use a 1-5 scale; Brian uses a 0-4 scale; Ben uses a 1-10 scale. Each of us needs to adapt the principles of Interpersonal Communication to the situation we are in and to our own way of thinking and organizing things.
So, in general I don’t think anyone is going to rip your suggestion apart. I will, however, mention a couple of things you might want to think about tweaking.
1. Most of the questions are looking for a positive response: make eye contact, respond with enthusiasm, suggest answers. The English question is looking for a negative. So, if you assigned a score of 1 to each question, the English question would throw everything off. (A 1 on this question would mean using English at the wrong times, which would be rewarding undesired behavior, but giving a 0 would lower the average and punish students for doing the right thing.) I suggest a positive question like: Do you communicate in Spanish/German/French/whatever the target language is?
2. While those of us on this blog know that his is a behavior rubric, we have to be able to present it to colleagues and administrators as an academic rubric. Unfortunately there is nothing “academic” about either going to the bathroom or having a positive attitude or showing up on time. Can you re-phrase those to look more academic? (I’m not saying that those aren’t important parts of the classroom atmosphere, but administrators can attack them as non-academic.)
3. What is “respect for the learning process”? That doesn’t say much to me, and I’m sure it’s meaningless to most students. I suggest “sit in a way that demonstrates engagement in interpersonal communication / the class conversation”.
4. Also, how do you measure “listening with the intent to understand”? On the one hand that seems to be a pretty internal process. On the other hand, I think this translates into “no private conversations”, “no random blurting”, “focused eyes” – but you need to have a way to measure it that students understand.
OK, aren’t you glad I said I wasn’t going to rip this apart? 🙂
Jennifer, if you look on my posters page here, you will see that rubric. I developed it about five years ago and abandoned it in part for reasons given by Robert above but mainly because the kids lied and I didn’t have enough secretaries to assess and count up points out of 10 X 180 students. The purpose was never to give them a grade but to get them thinking about their behavior in my class. Now, five years later, I realize that metacognition is not one of the strong suits of young teenagers. Now, phone calls replace that self reflection piece. I should remove that “participation self assessment” from my site. Robert is to be listened to on this one. His direction with the Three Modes is a much better target for us these days.
I adapted the discussion for my own class and I have it below. I am using a 10 point scale in my gradebook. I also made a 2 by 3 foot poster at Kinkos that looks likes a hand that has the rules on the fingers.
Interpersonal Communication Rubric German 1
5-Finger Rules
1. Non-verbal Communication: sits up straight, makes eye contact, stays in seat
2. Responds appropriately to statements and questions: ahh ja nein schade, answers questions, suggests alternatives
3. Uses German not English
4. Lets the teacher know if he/she doesn’t understand
5. Listens carefully; one conversation in the class between teacher and the class
A (100%)–– student effortlessly does the above described behaviors. Student responds appropriately to all communicated messages (reactive response). Student always signals confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. Students suggest ideas for class discussions and stories (non-reactive response). Students volunteer to speak. THIS IS ABOVE PROFICIENCY in this communicative mode.
A (95%) –– student effortlessly does the above described behaviors. Student responds appropriately to all communicated messages (reactive response). Student always signals confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. THIS IS ABOVE PROFICIENCY in this communicative mode.
B (85%) – student is able to do the above described behaviors. Student responds appropriately to most communicated messages (reactive response). Student frequently signals confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. THIS IS PROFICIENCY in this communicative mode. Applied to the school grading scale, this is a B.
C (75%) – student is able to do the above described behaviors, but minimally. Student can and does signal confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. Follows the Classroom Rules
D (65%) – student does not yet fully understand his/her role in class, that learning a language is a reciprocal and participatory activity requiring that the student be consciously involved in the class, trying to understand the language, communicating when he/she doesn’t understand, helping the teacher and the rest of the class in the process. Student does not does signal confusion using the “no-comprehension” response. Sometimes follows the Classroom Rules.
F (55%) – student is not mentally present, uses unnecessary L1, does not communicate to the instructor when confused, does not participate in a way that is good for the group, is largely mentally absent, frequently does not follow the posted Classroom Rules.
Name____________________________ Date______________
Interpersonal Communication Rubric German 1
Self Evaluation
1. Non-verbal Communication: sits up straight, makes eye contact, stays in seat
2 always/almost always 1.5 usually 1 sometimes 0 not usually
2. Responds appropriately to statements and questions: ahh ja nein schade, answers questions, suggests alternatives
2 always/almost always 1.5 usually 1 sometimes 0 not usually
3. Uses German not English
2 always/almost always 1.5 usually 1 sometimes 0 not usually
4. Lets the teacher know if he/she doesn’t understand
2 always/almost always 1.5 usually 1 sometimes 0 not usually
5. Listens carefully; one conversation in the class between teacher and the class
2 always/almost always 1.5 usually 1 sometimes 0 not usually
Total score out of 10 _____/ 10
Reflection
How am I doing on interpersonal communication in German class?
What could I improve?
Comments:
I went over this twice with students today. I need it to be easy. I took whoever’s idea this was because it’s easy:
Being fully present, no side L1: progressing (standard); C (traditional grade)
Signalling confusion as necessary and responding appropriately: meeting (standard); B (traditional grade)
Initiating comments or questions in L2: exceeding (standard); A (traditional grade)
Oops!! I meant…Signalling confusion and responding appropriately: A
Initiating: A+
If they’re often making it to signalling and responding, that’s a “meets,” or a B.
If they often are fully present and not using L1, that’s “beginning,” or a D.
Perhaps its my unique (or not so unique?) situation of (unfortunately) having many native speakers or at least native listeners (around their parents) mixed in with my non-native students that I will not make the A level related whatsoever to output. This also aligns anyways with the whole not forcing output idea of Krashen’s. A for me is the appropriately responding level (which of course includes but is not limited to basic L2 answers). This is the 3 on my 0-4 scale. Yes, 4 is responding in L2, because it didn’t make sense to me to NOT having talking in L2 on the interpersonal COMMUNICATION scale, but that level is just there to show the advanced students (not necessarily L2 native) where to go next. A is 3.
Of course, the beauty of this whole blog is the freedom to share and adapt as we see fit. Right on to all of us making this non-method method our own!
I am on to the next step now ,and that is how to turn these scales into ultra-simple numbers for, dare I say it – grades. A find it terribly difficult to either remember every ones negative (unnecessary L1, other distractions) and positive (signaling and responding) evidence of their position on the scale. Yes, maybe easy to remember the extreme bottom dwellers, but for me the top dwellers are not necessary the L2 talkers (darn those natives, uh I mean, bless their hearts and the guidance counselors who send them to me). The top for me (3) are those very ACTIVE message catchers.
For anyone reading this, what are your thoughts on a whole class daily grade on this interpersonal scale? I see it as reasonable since there should be more peer pressure from all students to keep the bottom dwellers from ruining the CI flow for the whole class – too much L1 (and other distractions) is keeping the whole class from getting what they need, and so everyone should care if L1 is ruining things. Plus, it couldn’t hurt to foster a bit of Eastern ‘group mentality’ to counter all this individualism that is not always appropariate. Hope there is some disagreement out there so I can force myself to think this through a bit better. I’ve been keeping a tally mark system going for a week or so now and I find that, with a clear explanation about why I am doing it (not to GET them but to POINT OUT the obstacles to our L2), students are positive about it and are trying to limit the bottom of the scale issues. Tally marks for L1 and other attention loss issues (things on desk, laps, no clear eyes) as well as when I see they don’t understand (because, say, I asked them a question) and they were’t signaling, leads me to a count at the end of the period that seems to represent fairly accurately where on the scale they were for the day. In other words, the tally mark idea is taking care of the first couple levels of my scale (the negative evidence), but it only indirectly tells me if pele were really at the understanding and responding level…
How to accurately capture individual or even class performance at level 3? Just assume they are there if no tally marks? Hmm….Im trying this scale stuff – I do like trying to get real grade numbers for what I really do what my students to know, but again, skills are not so quantifiable on a daily basis.
I did come up with a self-reflection questionnaire similar to others on this thread, and I feel its given me some very accurate, honest answers about where individual students are, BUT I do not want to disrespect their honesty by attaching a grade to that. It is wonderful to read those and see true reflection. If I attach a grade to it, I might as well just throw them out.
I am sitting back this year saying WOW, how great to see so many of my students really trying to practing and understand Spanish this year…it just so happens that it is the first year that I threw all the quantifiable stuff (multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, etc.) out the window. What does that crap measure anyways? Maybe just supervisor satisfaction when they see a ‘proper’ grade distribution at the end of each nine weeks?
Praying for an ultra-simple compromise between job-keeper stuff (scales, data) and fair reflection of student progress via grades (oxymoron?)…
There is no fair reflection of student progress that is quantifiable in a class that is based on reciprocal back and forth human interaction. If we indeed are going to try to quantify what interspersonal communication means in terms of what we see in our classroom then we need to start a discussion from scratch. Where do we start? What do we want?
Hmm…from scratch you think? Or will we just come full circle back to the unquantifiableness (take that, Webster) of it all.
Reciprocal back:
– L1 (the limited, allowable kind)
– non-forced L2 (simple responsive, exploratory attempts at self-expression beyond basic responses)
– non-verbal, positve communication (eyes, gestures, nodding…)
– oohs and ahhs and the rest of the auditory icing
and forth:
– all the above from us to the students. No hypocrisy here. We must model how a human interacts positively with another.
AND: all of the above implies the absence of the communication of negative energy (disrespectful show of boredom, distractive behavior, etc.)
So, ideas from scratch? I don’t think so. I’d be curious what others think. Grades should go away perhaps because they cannot in their flatness capture the multidimensionality (or simply, the real miracle and mystery) of learning. But they aree here so…
Okay, who’s up next? I’d like to stare this monster of an issue right in the eyes. Speak your minds! Scratching past superficialities and looking for how we really should divvy out grades – that is interesting. To me – not just because I am wrestling with this particular issue so much as of late – this whole fair grading thing is right at the heart of education.
If the answer is, there is no fair grading in our corner of education (that sounds radical writing that…) then I’d love to settle that now so I can be okay by making the grade part “easy” and focusing my energy on cultivating true curiosity in my class. If you think there IS fair grading, then hit the respond button. I need a don’t-be-silly slap down if that is the case.
I say there is no fair grading. Each kid is at the mercy of the teacher they have for that year. One kid fails because they don’t do worksheets, another succeeds because they do, yet with another teacher the results are reversed. Nothing is learned anyway, and A’s are given routinely to kids who know next to nothing by the end of the year. One kid ditches class but the teacher allows extra credit for a pirated project on Quebec to turn the grade into a C. Another teacher, knowing the level of hypocrisy involved in extra credit, fails the kid, as they should. The permutations and factors that go into posting grades, moreover, could never be articulated via a common assessment, which is an oxymoron. It’s all a big joke. So, Brian, I say cultivate the real stuff with those who are willing to go there with you. I am of a mind, lately as I see kids in comas in school, or what look like comas, to merely do my best with them, to take what I can from a class, even if it’s just from a few kids with compassionate hearts and who sense their duty to the group as human beings. So many of us tear our lives down, under supreme stress, trying to reach and fairly assess kids who are in those coma like things they have round them, and why should we do that? Granted, I write this stuff now being in a school that is much much more at poverty level than any I have ever worked in. Krashen really is right, it’s about poverty. Their poverty extends to all aspects of what we try to do together. Brian, the book you are hatching there may be called “The Poverty of Assessment”. Write it. And another book waiting to be written is the clear spike in teachers quitting under similar conditions to the ones you describe above. The gorilla in the room on this assessment thing, Brian, is this: “Do we have a right to assess kids on social skills if they have never experienced social skills, and just because the standards allow us to do it since the first standard is “communication”? What if a kid has never communicated? Is this our task, to spark them into back and forth communication with us? Is that in our job desciption?