The problem with my old standards was that they were too limiting. I was not able to use a wide variety of assessments and I started to feel really stifled toward the middle of the year.
I just finished the second draft of the standards I will use next year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gU1qIcSMnPUWpJZ93w9L1v1xNl10GF41QerY7gYDBns/edit?usp=sharing
I tried to make them more general so that they would allow me to use a wider variety of assessment. They should also work for any level of any language at any school that offers the standard four year course.
Showing posts with label Standards-based Grading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Standards-based Grading. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Monday, May 20, 2013
Only Give Unannounced Assessments
There isn't much point to giving announced quizzes, exams, tests, whatever in foreign language classes. If you are after fluency, you'll agree we should only care about what the students have acquired, not what they've memorized. (The same might be true in other subjects, too, but I won't go there.)
If you announce that on Friday there will be a test, the students will go home and (if you're lucky) study and memorize. Then on the test they will regurgitate.
Announcing assessments makes the whole thing about assessments. "We need to prepare for the test next week, that looming, dark thing" or "This will be on the test, so you better pay attention!" Of course assessment are necessary, but don't give them so much attention. Use them as a tool to tell where you're students are at, not as an end in themselves.
My students know to expect a "quick quiz" at the end of most class periods, but beyond that I try not to advertise assessments. I've heard whispers that we "don't even take tests in that class!" Of course that's ridiculous. My students take a variety of assessments, I just don't tell them that's what they're doing. I might give them questions and say "answer these," or I say "write about this," or maybe "draw pictures of this," all casually so that students simply do the task without really thinking about it as a test.
If you announce that on Friday there will be a test, the students will go home and (if you're lucky) study and memorize. Then on the test they will regurgitate.
Announcing assessments makes the whole thing about assessments. "We need to prepare for the test next week, that looming, dark thing" or "This will be on the test, so you better pay attention!" Of course assessment are necessary, but don't give them so much attention. Use them as a tool to tell where you're students are at, not as an end in themselves.
My students know to expect a "quick quiz" at the end of most class periods, but beyond that I try not to advertise assessments. I've heard whispers that we "don't even take tests in that class!" Of course that's ridiculous. My students take a variety of assessments, I just don't tell them that's what they're doing. I might give them questions and say "answer these," or I say "write about this," or maybe "draw pictures of this," all casually so that students simply do the task without really thinking about it as a test.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Standards-based Grading: The Letter Grade
Be sure to read Part 1 of this three part series first. It covers the standards themselves and the tasks for each level of each standard.
In standards-based grading (SBG), there are no points, and since there are no points grades are not based on averages. Therefore a student doesn't earn an A for getting 90% or 94% or whatever% of the points available over the grading period. For the philosophy and arguments behind this position, see an earlier post of mine which points to many other resources: http://jameshosler.blogspot.com/2012/02/bit-by-sbg-bug.html
Instead, for each standard students earn some rank 1-4 (or 1-10, or 1-2, or whatever scale the teacher is using) based on their performance against the tasks of the standards. If a student completes the level 2 task of the reading standard, for example, that student advances to level 2 for reading. And so on. In this way students earn some rank 1-4 for each standard throughout the grading period. Of course a student can go down the ranks as well as up, depending on performance. If a student gets to level 3 of the reading standard toward to beginning of the year, but by the end can longer complete the task for level 2, the student would fall to level 1 overall until he or she is able to demonstrate the adequate proficiency.
So, there are no points or averages. There is only a collection of ranks 1-4 (or whatever scale is used). The teacher needs to turn that into a letter grade. I use a conjunctive system after the work of Dr. Robert Marzano and the examples of many others (especially Chris Ludwig).
Final letter grades are calculated according to the various combinations of ranks. For example, here is how I calculated the overall letter grades in Latin 1 for third quarter this year:
For progress reports between grading periods (my school does them at 3 and 6 weeks) the letter grade scale can be easily changed to reflect what standards have been assessed and at what levels they have been assessed. For example, for the first 3 week progress report of Latin 1, obviously not every standard will have been assessed. Perhaps only interpersonal to level 2 and hearing to level 2 will have been assessed. So your scale will say something like "an A is a 2 in both, a B isn't possible, a C is a 2 in one standard and a 1 in the other, a D isn't possible, and an F is a 1 in both."
As the students progress through the years of language study, the requirements for each letter grade can become more rigorous:
Leave a comment below or discuss on Google+
In standards-based grading (SBG), there are no points, and since there are no points grades are not based on averages. Therefore a student doesn't earn an A for getting 90% or 94% or whatever% of the points available over the grading period. For the philosophy and arguments behind this position, see an earlier post of mine which points to many other resources: http://jameshosler.blogspot.com/2012/02/bit-by-sbg-bug.html
Instead, for each standard students earn some rank 1-4 (or 1-10, or 1-2, or whatever scale the teacher is using) based on their performance against the tasks of the standards. If a student completes the level 2 task of the reading standard, for example, that student advances to level 2 for reading. And so on. In this way students earn some rank 1-4 for each standard throughout the grading period. Of course a student can go down the ranks as well as up, depending on performance. If a student gets to level 3 of the reading standard toward to beginning of the year, but by the end can longer complete the task for level 2, the student would fall to level 1 overall until he or she is able to demonstrate the adequate proficiency.
So, there are no points or averages. There is only a collection of ranks 1-4 (or whatever scale is used). The teacher needs to turn that into a letter grade. I use a conjunctive system after the work of Dr. Robert Marzano and the examples of many others (especially Chris Ludwig).
Final letter grades are calculated according to the various combinations of ranks. For example, here is how I calculated the overall letter grades in Latin 1 for third quarter this year:
You earn the overall grade:
|
If you earn these ranks:
|
A
|
-a 4 in at least one standard
-nothing lower than a 3
|
B
|
-a 3 in at least three standards
-nothing lower than a 2
|
C
|
either
-nothing lower than a 2
or
-1 in any standard
|
D
|
-1 in any two standards
|
F
|
-1 in any three standards
|
“pluses”
and “minuses" can also be given when appropriate, for combinations of
ranks that are “in between” the descriptions above
For progress reports between grading periods (my school does them at 3 and 6 weeks) the letter grade scale can be easily changed to reflect what standards have been assessed and at what levels they have been assessed. For example, for the first 3 week progress report of Latin 1, obviously not every standard will have been assessed. Perhaps only interpersonal to level 2 and hearing to level 2 will have been assessed. So your scale will say something like "an A is a 2 in both, a B isn't possible, a C is a 2 in one standard and a 1 in the other, a D isn't possible, and an F is a 1 in both."
As the students progress through the years of language study, the requirements for each letter grade can become more rigorous:
Latin 1, Semesters 1 and 2
You earn the overall grade:
|
If you earn these ranks:
|
A
|
-a 4 in at least one standard
-nothing lower than a 3
|
B
|
-a 3 in at least three standards
-nothing lower than a 2
|
C
|
either
-nothing lower than a 2
or
-1 in any standard
|
D
|
-1 in any two standards
|
F
|
-1 in any three standards
|
Latin 2, Semester 1
You earn the overall grade:
|
If you earn these ranks:
|
A
|
-a 4 in at least one standard
-nothing lower than a 3
|
B
|
-a 3 in at least three standards
-nothing lower than a 2
|
C
|
either
-nothing lower than a 2
or
-1 in any standard
|
D
|
-1 in any two standards
|
F
|
-1 in any three standards
|
Latin 2, Semester 2
You earn the overall grade:
|
If you earn these ranks:
|
A
|
-a 4 in at least two standards
-nothing lower than a 3
|
B
|
-a 3 in at least three standards
-nothing lower than a 2
|
C
|
either
-nothing lower than a 2
or
-1 in any standard
|
D
|
-1 in any two standards
|
F
|
-1 in any three standards
|
Latin 3 and 4, Semesters 1 and 2
You earn the overall grade:
|
If you earn these ranks:
|
A
|
-a 4 in at least two standards
-nothing lower than a 3
|
B
|
-a 3 in at least four standards
-nothing lower than a 2
|
C
|
either
-nothing lower than a 2
or
-1 in any standard
|
D
|
-1 in any two standards
|
F
|
-1 in any three standards
|
Leave a comment below or discuss on Google+
My Foreign Language Standards, Friendly to Comprehensible Input
This is the first post of three on my approach to standards-based grading (SBG) in the "teaching with comprehensible input (TCI) foreign language classroom." Part 2 covers calculating an overall letter grade and Part 3 will cover how SBG helps scheduling and variety in the TCI classroom.
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.
Standard 3: Writing is the trickiest because it changes every year:
Standard 6: Speaking and Standard 7: Grammar
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.
A Word on ACTFL
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)