For the past weeks I have been using and continuing to see greater and greater value in “the JGR”. I knew it had power when this week Annick Chen – a truly gifted CCI Mandarin teacher – came into my room (I had asked her to observe me in a reading class to clarify a few things about reading) and she happened to see “the JGR” on my doc camera and picked it up and grabbed me after school and said, “We have to talk about this!” That’s when I knew this thing had power.
So, since I like to repost stuff with power here so we don’t let it scroll out of view, I’m reposting it here, with, below it, a recent comment (in green) I made about how useful it has quickly become for me:
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. USE OF ENGLISH.
- 1 (D/F) NOT ATTENTIVE: NO EYE CONTACT OR EFFORT. USE OF ENGLISH.
- 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%
Key point: Look how jen (see the rubric below if you haven’t had time to study it) defines the word “attentive” in the rubric:
*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.
Robots do that. But the interpersonal skill is more than that. That’s why it’s called the interpersonal and not the interobotic skill. So the new learning here, quite important to me, is that when a kid appears to interact with me, in spite of doing all those things, they are really being like robots.
Jen has brilliantly chosen to give attentive (read robotic) kids an interpersonal grade that can never get higher than 2 (74%). Look at what a 3 is above and you won’t find the word attentive in it. Jen purposely omitted the word attentive from the rubric above the 2. She uses the words RESPONDS when describing behaviors above 2. Responds is a word that describes human interaction.
Beyond that, she also uses the term “uses the stop sign” as a key indicator in determining the grade above 2. That is also something that human beings who are good listeners do – they ask for clarification when they hear things that they don’t quite grasp. This touch of brilliance keeps the rubric perfectly in line with the ACTFL Three Modes.
To get a grade above 2 (75%), the child doesn’t have to be a fast processor, nor have great talent at writing or speaking, but must be able to have the skill of NEGOTIATING MEANING IN THE TARGET LANGUAGEn and RESPONDING IN A HUMAN, NON-ROBOTIC WAY TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE CLASSROOM.
I define “negotiating meaning” as being able to respond with the stop sign to clarify when the student doesn’t know the language – it’s the only thing the students can do, really, but it is a form of communication involving not just the stop sign but also the eyes.
The other term we want to be able to bring up in discussion with parents or whomever needs re-education in the national standard of Communication (that includes a LOT of administrators) and its specifics as they are described in the Interspersonal Skill of the Three Modes of Communication, which describes the national Communication standard and sorry for the run-on is “observable behaviors”.
This is what the robots’ parents cannot argue with. Their kid gets the 2 because I as the professional in the room DO SEE ANY OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR IN THE ROBOT THAT ALLOWS US TO GREAT IT HIGHER THAN A 2. Since this is in my classroom 50% of the grade, and since there are so many robots everywhere, made by the system, I have been very active this month in this area of parent and administrator re-education.
So, for me, a kid who interacts with me in class visually and who uses the stop sign is exhibiting a human and not a robotic response and I will reward that kid with a grade above 2 but I will not reward a kid who doesn’t use the stop sign or who chooses to not give me anything more than a blank stare with a grade above C, and, if you notice the way that jen designed the grade ranges (that actually came from Robert?), you can see that if I want I can opt for the D in a particularly robotic kid.
I know I know – Laurie made a point about three weeks ago about the kids who have attention disorders. But I differentiate their grades. The point here is that – ADD kids aside – you can have a lovely C in my class if you appear to be a robot, but if you want a grade above C then you actually have to show some human qualities and show up for class.
Doing this, in my opinion, keeps the vision of all in the classroom on the need to behave according to this remarkabe document, which, in my own view, is the fruit of the suggestions that Robert first brought to the table here last May and that we have not stopped talking about since.
No blame on the attentive robots – they probably literally never had a class where half their grade was determined by a mode of communication. And yet, not only do the national standards indicate that we should assess that way, but also many parents are now more and more appreciative that their child in at least one class must INTERact with the teacher instead of a machine or a teacher who teaches like a machine.
They get it. They don’t want their kids to fail in the workplace because they never had to develop people skills. Not everybody is voting for robots and books in schools. There are parents who want their kids to learn interview skills and how-to-interact-with-other-human-being skills.
So not only has jen figured out that when a student is merely attentive they are like a robot, but she has forced the not so darling little robots grades’ toward the lower half of the grade spectrum where they belong in a language class.
In this design, jen has effectively placed into this rubric something that I have never seen in any other rubric, namely, teeth.
