During the past year and a half I have revised the standards for my classes at least two dozen times. Often the revisions were only theoretical and didn't impact my students. I would, however, sneak in whatever revisions I could between quarters and semesters in order to test the waters. After all that I am finally ready to put my name behind a set of standards for all four years of high school foreign language. I am particularly hopeful that the standards and tasks within each standard will mesh with the lessons of Dr. Stephen Krashen and the methods of TCI and Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS). I hope that readers find here a good union between profound assessment (SBG) and profound foreign language pedagogy (TCI).
The GoogleDoc, which contains all the standards for every year, can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xg5gvhLZkbEoYESsbYbhg7NwueO1yQCF5OwVPKaRh2Y/edit?usp=sharing
Note: This is the definitive version and will probably be edited more after this post is published.
Observation 1: Keep it simple!
I have observed that, generally speaking, the more standards a teacher has the less room the content has to prosper. Therefore, the fewer standards the better. Keep it simple. With too many standards class quickly feels like a checklist. The point of standards-based grading is to take stress away from assessment so that pedagogy can be the focus. Standards-based grading should make grading easy to do and easy to understand; it should take grading off the table, in a way, by making it unarguably fair and transparent.
The foreign language teacher has a huge advantage here because language is by its very nature a progressively rigorous, demanding, challenging subject. A standard for "reading," for example, can literally be the same all year, and even across all four years, because the tasks for each level will become more advanced as the reading matter becomes more advanced. And of course the reading matter becomes more advanced in a very slow and natural way as the students learn more of the language and so are able to comprehend more advanced readings. The language provides plenty of depth of rigor; the standards themselves don't need to.
Observation 2: It's best to make the tasks for each level of each standard really different.
For the longest time, level 2 of "reading" for my classes was "able to answer Latin comprehension question" and level 3 was "able to answer English comprehension questions." This was a mistake and after a while just felt ridiculous. Questions are questions, and while both Latin and English questions are necessary, both types still display the same kind of knowledge on the student's part. Therefore they should both be on the same level, now level 3, which opened up level 2 for the awesome dynamics provided by textivate.com.
Observation 3: It's unfair to expect students in lower years to speak or analyze grammar.
This isn't so much an observation from my time with standards-based grading as a hard lesson learned. The idea itself, that lower year classes should ideally be comprised entirely of comprehensible input (CI), is nothing new. It is based on current research, especially the work of Dr. Stephen Krashen. Many teachers have adopted a CI approach with excellent results, and my own experiences have only made me more enthusiastic. Therefore you will notice that speaking and grammar do not appear as standards until the third year of language study--they might even be put off longer than that--and when they do the tasks for each level are basic when compared to the unrealistic and unfair expectations of some textbooks. I use the word "unfair" carefully: The research says that it is pointless (at best) and potentially harmful (at worst) to have students speak the target language without first receiving massive amounts of CI. Students learn nothing by producing the language, they merely show what they have acquired. It follows that they need to acquire a good amount before showing what they've got. Then there is grammar, the formal study of which is less and less popular by the day as teachers realize more and more how class time is better spent communicating in comprehensible and compelling ways in the target language. I could go on for a while about this--it is easily the most controversial opinion I've expressed on this blog--but we'll leave it for now.
Now for a quick look at the standards themselves
Remember you can use the link above to see the latest version on GoogleDocs.
There are five standards in the first two years: 1) Hearing, 2) Reading, 3) Writing, 4) Interpersonal, and 5) Vocabulary. Two more standards are added in years three and four: 6) Speaking and 7) Grammar.
Standard 1: Hearing, Standard 2: Reading, Standard 4: Interpersonal, and Standard 5: Vocabulary
These are the same for all four years of language study. Remember, it's the language that naturally gets more challenging as time goes on; the standards can stay the same.
1. Hearing Latin (audire), Latin 1, 2, 3, and 4
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to answer English and Latin comprehension questions about passages they hear.
|
3.0
|
In addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to record Latin dictation.
|
2.0
|
Students will consistently perform well on “quick quizzes”
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
2. Reading Latin (legere), Latin 1, 2, 3, and 4
4.0
|
In
addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to translate into
English unseen Latin passages containing familiar vocabulary and
content.
|
3.0
|
In
addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to answer English and
Latin comprehension questions about passages they have read.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to unscramble Latin passages they have read in the style of textivate.com.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
4. Interpersonal Communication (a.k.a. “Letting Language In”), Latin 1, 2, 3, and 4
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students volunteer spontaneous output in Latin.
|
3.0
|
Students
consistently show signs of negotiating meaning when others are
speaking. Signs include: good eye contact, attentive posture,
participating in choral responses, offering answers during stories,
receptive body language, consistently good performance on “quick quizzes”, etc.
|
2.0
|
The
student shows only inconsistent signs of negotiating meaning when
others are speaking. Signs include: frequent cell phone use, side
conversations in English, blurting out in English, poor eye contact,
struggling with sleep, giving only occasional responses and answers,
weak body language, inconsistent performance on “quick quizzes”, etc.
|
1.0
|
The
student is not attentive to the language during class. Signs include:
sleeping, being constantly distracted, not responding to requests to
improve, never making eye contact, poor performance on “quick quizzes”, etc.
|
5. Vocabulary, Latin 1, 2, 3, and 4
4.0
|
Students will be able to attain level 4 of the Reading Standard (Standard 2) with minimal vocabulary assistance.
|
3.0
|
Students will be able to attain level 3 of the Reading Standard (Standard 2) with minimal vocabulary assistance.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to attain level 2 of the Reading Standard (Standard 2) with minimal vocabulary assistance.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
3. Writing Latin (scribere), Latin 1
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to complete summarium fabulae (a summary of a story) grids about Latin stories they have read.
|
3.0
|
In addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to complete simplified Latin storyboards of Latin passages they have read.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to complete a 40 word Latin free-write in five minutes about Latin passages they have read.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
3. Writing Latin (scribere), Latin 2
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to complete summarium fabulae (a summary of a story) grids about Latin stories they have read.
|
3.0
|
In addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to complete simplified Latin storyboards of Latin passages they have read.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to complete a 100 word Latin free-write in ten minutes about Latin passages they have read.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
3. Writing Latin (scribere), Latin 3
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to write descriptions of images using familiar vocabulary.
|
3.0
|
In addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to complete summarium fabulae (a summary of a story) grids about Latin stories they have read.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to complete simplified Latin storyboards of Latin passages they have read.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
3. Writing Latin (scribere), Latin 4
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to write stories about images using familiar vocabulary.
|
3.0
|
In addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to complete summarium fabulae (a summary of a story) grids about Latin stories they have read.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to complete simplified Latin storyboards of Latin passages they have read.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
These are introduced in years 3 and 4. If you are more of a hippie than me, you can hold them off until even later.
6. Speaking Latin (dicere), Latin 3
4.0
|
In
addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to tell aloud in Latin a
summary of Latin passages they have read and/or heard.
|
3.0
|
In
addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to answer aloud Latin
comprehension questions about passages they have read and/or heard.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to pronounce Latin passages with appropriate inflection and expression.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
6. Speaking Latin (dicere), Latin 4
4.0
|
In
addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to tell aloud in Latin
unrehearsed descriptions of images using familiar vocabulary.
|
3.0
|
In
addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to tell aloud in Latin a
summary of Latin passages they have read and/or heard.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to answer aloud Latin comprehension questions about passages they have read and/or heard.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
7. Grammar (grammatica) Latin 3 and 4
4.0
|
In addition to 3.0 content, students will be able to identify and correct grammar mistakes.
|
3.0
|
In
addition to 2.0 content, students will be able to select the correct
form of words to complete Latin sentences based on grammar.
|
2.0
|
Students will be able to select the correct English translation of Latin words based on grammar.
|
1.0
|
Little or no ability has been demonstrated.
|
A Word on ACTFL
These standards align completely with the three modes of communication set forth by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
- Interpretive: Standard 1, Hearing and Standard 2, Reading
- Interpersonal: Standard 4, Interpersonal
- Presentational: Standard 3, Writing, and Standard 6: Speaking
I love how clear these are. Mine tend to be much too wordy! If it's all right with you, I will not only send a link to this page from my site, but copy brazenly for my own students. I already do standards-based grading, and these categories make the standards clear and fair.
ReplyDeleteYou are free to use whatever you find helpful. That's the whole point, after all! We're here to help each other.
DeleteWell thanks! I've posted them here:
Deletehttp://mjtprs.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/standards-from-james/
Thanks for sharing these James. These standards are straightforward and much easier to understand than many I've seen in the past.
ReplyDeleteWill you be attending NTPRS13 in Dallas?
For the writing standard when students complete the standard at 4.0 level, does how well they write play any part in reaching the 4.0 or do they receive 4.0 as long as you understand what they write?
Awesome question. For lower levels (like year 1 and 2), as long as I understand what they write they get that 4. Note that there is no grammar standard for lower levels, because grammatical accuracy is not a focus there.
DeleteIn years 3 and 4--and this is somewhat hypothetical because I have not yet had a year 3 or 4 class that has had an adequate foundation in CI (but I should next year)--I would probably combine a level 4 writing assessment with a grammar assessment. So students would first write a rough draft, and if I understand it they get to level 4 of writing. Then we go could through and correct all our papers for grammatical accuracy. This could be done as groupwork or whatever, but the results would be 1) a polished piece of writing and 2) a grammar assessment that wasn't a "fill-in-the-blank" style quiz.
Does that make sense? I am still working through how it will all play out in the upper levels.
For a combined writing/grammar assessment a level 3 or 4 student could receive a 4.0 in writing, because you understood what they wrote, but not necessarily a 4.0 on the grammar part of the assessment?
ReplyDeleteThe part I'm still unclear about is how you arrive at the grammar grade. Will you go over the writing with each student individually and have them explain to you how to correct the problems in the writing and then have them rewrite it? I do that at times with my upper levels and I'd love to know if that is beneficial or if there is a better way to address the grammar problems.
I wholeheartedly agree with you - "enough already" with the "fill-in-the-blank" style grammar assessments. :)
Could I press you to answer another question? My school has a requirement that 80% or more of a student's grade is a summative assessment. Do you make any differentiation between formative assessments and summative assessments?
I like the idea of keeping skills separate as much as possible. In foreign language this is actually impossible, but we can still try. Writing is one thing: Can I understand what you wrote? Grammar is something else: Is what you wrote grammatically accurate. Looking at it like that I can see how you could get a high rank for writing but a low one for grammar. But of course that low grammar ranking can go up if the student shows improved proficiency.
DeleteLevel 3 of my grammar rubric currently reads, "students are able to select the correct form of a word based on grammar." So how do we get that to be an assessment based on actual student work and not just a another "fill-in-the-blank" exercise? Imagine that the students have recently completed a writing assessment. Some (let's be optimistic and say "most") have received those 4s. Now let's do some grammar editing. Put a student's work. Read it through and demonstrate how, despite the grammar errors, we can all understand what it says. Now look at a few of the grammar errors you think your students have or should have acquired by now. Underline them. Give students a few options of what could have been said instead. Let them choose based on grammar. Boom. You're doing level 3 of grammar. This could be done as a whole group at first to practice a little and then individually as an actual grammar assessment.
Level 4 says, "students are able to identify and correct grammar mistakes." The same procedure can be used as above, except now the STUDENTS are the ones who call out what they would change--or, for an official grammar assessment, the individual student gives it a shot on her own.
I also think that the procedure you describe of going over what was written with the student individually. In this way the student could start out trying for level 4, in which the student himself attempts to locate the errors. After a while if that isn't going well and the student doesn't know what to say, the teacher could then switch the student to level 3 and begin pointing out a few errors that need to be fixed. (Not every error should be noticed, only the ones which the students have or should have acquired.) The teacher could also have an individual conference with a student in this way using the work of another student, in order to give the student something fresh to analyze. The teacher should keep all this anonymous, of course.
Now, about the summative/formative thing. I really don't understand why we need that separation, to be honest. If you say an assessment is NOT formative, it's like you're saying the results don't matter for the purposes of learning. If you say an assessment is NOT summative, it's like you're saying the results don't really matter. All of my assessments are both formative (i.e., the results guide leaning and changes of instruction) AND summative (i.e., the results matter in the gradebook--and of course the results in the gradebook are easy to improve by means of liberal, =infinite, reassessments).
Can you think of ways to spin your assessments as either "formative" or "summative" based on what they need to be? Is the policy that EXACTLY 80% be based on summative, or AT LEAST 80%? If it's AT LEAST 80%, then you can just say that everything is summative and offer reassessments. Oh, I notice that you've said the policy is "80% or more" needs to be summative. Can you just say everything is summative and offer reassessments?
Keep in mind that the spirit of that law is to make sure teachers aren't counting homework too heavily in the letter grade (do you?) and that they aren't giving points for bring in tissues, etc. (do you?). You might pitch the reassessment dynamic and see what they say. Is your whole school using SBG?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response James.
ReplyDelete- I do not give homework assignments often. It is worth 4% of their grade, which falls into the "formative" category in PowerSchool.
- absolutely NO points for things like bringing in tissues - "not on my watch" :)
- I do not announce quizzes because I don't want to know what the student studied or memorized the previous night or in the last few minutes of the previous class before coming to my class. Quizzes help ME learn what they have acquired and what I need to recycle in upcoming lessons to move the students forward in their acquisition process of the language.
- I allow students to re-quiz 2x a marking period. I always have two or more versions of quizzes so I give them the quiz they didn't have the first time.
Thanks again for your posts on this subject. Anything that moves AWAY from memorization (including memorized "skits" and rote presentations), quizzing on verb charts, and fill-in-the-blank questions and MOVES TOWARD accurately assessing a student's proficiency is a step in the right direction.
Awesome. It sounds like you and I are on a very similar page. :-)
DeleteHi James! I'm a new Spanish teacher at a inquiry- and project-based school. I just learned about SBG from a colleague and I'm pumped to put it in action this year. Thanks for all your great ideas and reflections, it's extremely helpful for a new teacher like me trying to pull together all the different great ideas that are out there.
ReplyDeleteMil gracias,
max.
Sweet, Max. It sounds like you are in a good situation. Please let me know if you have any questions! Are you on Twitter? I am @jameshosler
Delete