This may be the baddest ass rubric I have ever used with real classroom behavior teeth in it. I think it is. Man am I thankful that jen took those other wonderful rubrics and simplified them. I just am too lazy to do any more work than she describes in assessing the level at which each kid is aligning with the Interpersonal Skills rubric of the Three Modes of Communication. Just to be clear, this is my own version of her original document, but it is pretty much the same as hers:
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RUBRIC (used in daily assessment: 65% of grade)
- 5 ALL SKILLS 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 do. This 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 LANGUAGE.
I define negotiating meaning as being able to respond with the stop sign to clarify when you (the student) don’t know the language – it’s the only thing you can do, really, but it is a form of communication involving not just the stop sign but also the eyes.
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 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 what about the kids who have attention disorders – I differentiate their grades. But the point is that 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 so, in my opinion, keeps the vision on the interpersonal mode, which, in my own view, is the heart of the change 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 request that we 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. 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 applied that to the lower half of the grade spectrum.
In this design, jen has effectively injected into this rubric something that I have never seen in any other rubric.