Please accept my thanks for all the bios that have come in and other blog posts. I will get to them. This standards based discussion, however, is something I want to keep front and center for now. Here is where I am now on this thread, which, in my opinion, if nothing else, is great in terms of its simplicity and in terms of its aligning with standards:
I have always thought it patently absurd that administrators, working under the spell of received ideas, are the ones who have been telling us for decades and decades how to assess the work of our students. But, as we teachers have continued to soldier on under the spell of the book model for all those decades, it is clear that we were powerless to make up our own grading system. We couldn’t tell the difference between the Three Modes of Communication and a bean field. We didn’t know them and we really didn’t care about them. We went with the old (Jennifer’s 25% homework, 50% tests, etc. absurdity) because we didn’t have anything else. But, the more we used comprehension based methods, the more we needed the Three Modes.
Last May, we thought (Harrell thought): “What would happen if I aligned my grading with the Three Modes of Communication?”
Well, as this thread has continued here since last May, every day growing a bit in meaning and importance to what we do in our comprehension based instruction, my own eyes are beginning to see that I may be able to easily and quickly slay the model of the past and replace it with an ultra simple way of assessing my kids that actually aligns with the national standards.
Robert has said all of it in the past few days in different comments – I am just trying to give what he said form in my own mind. He has said and we have agreed that the five C’s don’t really mean anything and that the real heart of them is only the one: communication. And that put Robert’s attention firmly on the Three Modes in May, and especially on the Interpersonal and Interpretive modes. We started looking at them as the best means, the best hope, of aligning our instruction with what we have decided best practices means for us – using comprehensible input in our language classrooms.
So, with the soup now boiled down enough to reveal two bones lying at the bottom of the cauldron, the Interspersonal and Interpretive modes, and with enough energy being generated on this site to keep returning to them over and over in this current discussion, I have but to find a way to quantify them so that my administrators can see them as letter grades. They don’t care and don’t know about the WHY, so we give them what they want, while giving ourselves what we need.
(Please comment here if you see any flaw in my thinking because I learn by writing things out, I’m one of those kinds of people).
How to therefore quantify the Interpretive mode? Easy. For me, anyway, I just give lots of quick quizzes as discussed in depth on this blog over the past four months or so. They are yes/no easy low end of the taxonomy quizzes. They are built to motivate kids, to give them confidence. 50% of a kid’s grade, in this new scenario that I am suggesting here (maybe), would be based on interpretive mode/quizzes. Since they are 10 question quizzes (a 5 question quiz is too short, in my opinion, to get any real indication if they listened all period), I could give at least one such quiz each week, at a minimum. Let’s say at least six quiz grades per six week grading period. The kids might get 48 questions correct out of 60, or 80%. The computer would call that a B, 80%, and the Interpretive mode half of the kid’s grade would be taken care of simply and easily. Half of my goal of grading a) simply and b) according to the standards would be met if use this plan.
Now, what about the Interspersonal part? What about the part of the grade that Robert said this about:
…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….
Robert said that currently he uses the following rubric:
5 = Advanced
4 = Proficient (the target)
3 = Basic
2 = Below Basic
1 = Far Below Basic
Since my own gradebook takes numbers on a 10 scale and turns them into a letter grade, I would double those, and come up with something like:
10 = Advanced
9 = Highly Proficient
8 = Proficient (the target)
7 = Partially Proficient
6 = Basic
5 = Below Basic
4 = Below Basic
3 = Far Below Basic
2 = Shitty (I would change this term)
1 = Really Shitty (I would change this term)
0 = Detrimental to Others
Now, how easy would this be? Really easy! The participation rubrics on the Posters page of this site are almost impossible to use, and the kids don’t really put any true thought into them. They are a waste of time.
Key in my use of the terms above is this by Robert:
…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….
Don’t forget what Robert said about these numbers:
…the numbers reflect level of performance, not points accumulated. My students get this….
Again, I am just thinking aloud here. I aim to get this thing wrapped up by next week, however. I I am determined to grade my kids simply according to standards, not according to how many points they get. Once that is done, my gradebook will not drive my instruction. It won’t.