Jennifer describes below a scenario that took place with one of her students involving jGR. I publish it here and have placed this article under the jGR category, to add to the half dozen strong support articles there already, because of Robert’s clear description (below what Jennifer wrote) of the professional way in which Jennifer handled the situation with this little snot, oops I mean wonderful student.
Jennifer:
What script can you give me for the girl that was huffing and puffing today about how ridiculous it is that she was given a 3 out of 5 where interpersonal is 30% of the grade so she has a 60% in that category, an overall 85% which is the highest C grade in our school. She was livid and wanted to fight with me. I just did a broken record of “I understand that you feel that way.” Until she finally went back to her seat.
Robert:
My snarky self always wants to say something like, “You’re absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that you choose not to meet the standard when you are absolutely capable of doing so.”
Seriously, as long as the student wanted to fight, you did the right thing: keep repeating a totally neutral recognition of her emotional state. You gave her nothing to fight, you saved yourself the hassle of engaging her with the class keyed in to see who won, and you left the door open for a genuine discussion at a latter time.
I imagine you gave students the interpersonal rubric and the grading scale going in, so the weight of the grade is no surprise. The requirements for each level should be no surprise either. When the student is calm and not trying to pick a fight – or when mom and dad get involved – sit down and go over the rubric. State where you see the student failing to meet the rubric (e.g. consistently talking with friends, failing to seek clarification, failing to respond to questions and other prompts unless addressed directly – which would be a 2 not a 3). Allow the student to seek to prove to you that her observable behaviors* meet the standard. It may also help to translate those numbers into words: 4 indicates proficiency in that the student is able to perform the task with a consistently high degree of competence. Erratic performance is not proficient, no matter how well someone may do in a one-off situation. Perhaps a sports analogy would help. In tennis I might be able to ace the occasional serve or get a volley going, but until I can place the ball consistently where I want it to go at the speed I want from it and return the ball consistently, I am not a proficient tennis player, and I have to go far beyond that to be advanced/outstanding (i.e. in the same league as Serena Williams or Rafael Nadal)
*This is key: the behaviors must be observable to be assessable. She may say, “Well I pay attention.” Ask her to describe how she demonstrates that in class when you observe her constantly turned away from you toward a friend. You are describing an observed behavior; she is trying to convince you that she does something you are unable to observe. She may say, “I answer your questions.” Your observation is that she answers questions when addressed to her; does she volunteer answers or contribute to the class conversation without having to be asked directly? Only voluntary response, either visually or in the Target Language, goes beyond a 2. (As an aside, the other day I was presenting cultural information about Christmas. I was speaking in German, but this was new information so many of my students were responding in English. I found that perfectly fine in the situation; it showed that they were engaged – “locked on” to negotiating meaning. All of those students were at a 4 but were not yet ready to output in German. Guess what, in my system that behavior plus doing well on the interpretive quizzes will still get you an A in the class.) If she tries to “prove” that she pays attention by referring to good grades on quizzes, your response is that she has received the appropriate credit and recognition for interpretive communication; the issue is the interpersonal mode of communication, which ACTFL describes and you have outlined with your rubric.
She may also say, “Well what about Susie?” Your reply must be and remain, “We are talking about you, not Susie. Just as it would be unprofessional to talk about you to another student, I will not and cannot discuss another student with you.”
Jody:
Thanks for walking through that dialogue. Very helpful.
Me:
Robert thank you for this. I have sensed the Power of jGR level 2 vs. jGR level 3 in my own classes. This is what jen has done that is the main goal of the rubric – delineate between those two levels.
The way she set it up also makes the overall big range, in terms of observable behaviors, that big range between a 2 and a 4, very easy to grasp by the kids.
Jennifer did this right, enforced it right, has legs to stand on in a challenge meeting, and all is good. It is a good day when teachers can truly rebuff this kind of lame attack from kids with hard numbers resting on solid ground, here ACTFL.
It’s a win for Jennifer today. I really think the entire thing would not have happened if that 85% were the lowest B in her school and not the highest C. She probably wouldn’t have heard a peep out of the girl. It really is pretty much only about grades with the vast majority of students.
What jGR did for jen in this situation is prevent the child from getting an A – in pre-jGR days it appears that her overall term grade would have been an A.
Obviously she is smart, but not performing to standards, and so why should she get an A if she is not performing to standards. She shouldn’t and it took jGR to fix that situation. When you think about that, how can a child be smart and not perform to standards? we need to send all our colleagues around the country a box of jGR for the holidays, and, among those who open the package (maybe 5%) a few will actually use it. Then we can slowly make American foreign language classrooms just a bit more human. Good job, jen, for not caving on that single percentage point. I personally don’t think that a kid performing observably at a 2 on jGR deserves above a C.