Here is the rubric Robert is using, followed by some comments. How to use it? Personally, I am going to be talking to administrators about these two new suns we have found in our grading galaxy:
Robert’s Interpersonal Communication Mode, which to me means how are my students doing at interacting with me in my classroom?
The Interpretive Mode, which I will tie to class content quiz grades and means how are my students doing at interpreting and understanding what they hear in my classroom?)
Just to pre-state something that Robert says below:
Many of these actions also affect citizenship and work habits, but they are not citizenship grades; they are academic grades tied to the standard of Interpersonal Communication and were taken from ACTFL and College Board descriptions of that standard.
Interpersonal Communication Self-Evaluation Rubric
5=exceeds target
4=meets target (80%+ of time)
3=partially meets target
2=doesn’t meet target
1=there’s a target?
0=what class is this?
____I let the teacher know when I don’t understand something by signaling
____I use body language to show engagement in class communication
____I respond appropriately to the teacher’s statements and questions
(e.g. “ooohhh”; correct answer to “what did I just say” or issue of fact)
____I suggest appropriate details to add to the story or class discussion
____I use German to communicate
____I follow conversation conventions (e.g. respect others, don’t blurt out)
Commentary by Robert:
I went over this with every class before they filled them out. Since we work with the 80% rule anyway, I set that as the target. Are they exhibiting these behaviors at least 80% of the time? Personally, I don’t see any reason to define the other levels for them, though I mentioned that Advanced would be about 95% of the time.
– signalling: obviously I can’t know whether they know something or not, but if I ask a question and they can’t answer it, I remind them that they are not meeting that standard.
– body language: I am very explicit about the kind of body language that shows engagement (slightly forward in the chair, shoulders squared, eyes focused) and what doesn’t (head or body turned away, slouching, closed eyes, vacant stare, bowed head). Here’s where modelling the behavior we want is handy.
– response: I have to base my grade on what they give me when I ask, but they should evaluate whether or not they could have answered another student’s question
-details: I have to base my grade on what they suggest; quieter students will not be hurt if this is low and everything else is high because anything above a 4 is a 5 (or set your own cut-off point, e.g. 4.5 and above average is a 5), anything above a 3 is a4, etc.
– German: do they at least try to speak in German, or do they try to excuse themselves by saying they don’t know much German? [If you don’t know how to say it, then you can’t say it.] ACTFL position statement says 90%+ of class speech by teacher and students is in target language.
– conventions: this covers blurting, side conversations, daydreaming, etc. because these actions do not show respect for the conversation partners and therefore do not meet the standard of conversation conventions.
All of this fits on a half sheet of paper, and students write down their score (0-5) to the left of the targeted standard. I average the score and consider whether it is appropriate or not. Most of the time the student evaluation is either the same as mine or lower, occasionally higher. Then we have an opportunity to talk about it.
Many of these actions also affect citizenship and work habits, but they are not citizenship grades; they are academic grades tied to the standard of Interpersonal Communication and were taken from ACTFL and College Board descriptions of that standard.
In dealing with Citizenship I have found Michael Josephson’s “Six Pillars of Character” very helpful. Check out Character Counts (http://charactercounts.org/).