Good evening!
Just a quick post to share my latest rubric drafts for the interpretive mode of communication. There are some revisions to the level 1-2 rubric, so please revisit it if you've already seen it. I developed the level 3 and 4/AP rubrics this evening, so they are new! As soon as I finalize the documents, I'll post them in Word so that you can edit and use as your own, if you like.
As I stated in the last post, these rubrics were developed after having reviewed the work of Toni Theisen (format and some wording are from her district rubrics), Laura Terrill, FLENJ, ACTFL and Lexington School District One's rubrics here in South Carolina.
I would be very appreciative if you'd click on the following link to the "Rubrics and Assessment" page of my website, review the three posted rubrics, and provide me with some feedback either in the comments section of this blog post or on Twitter.
Click here to see the documents: Rubrics & Assessment
Thank you in advance for your feedback!
I really like how you have broken the language down into different levels; it's easy to understand what the different ranges mean.
ReplyDeleteThat being said - would it be easier to use concrete examples instead of "adequately," etc.? For example - "accurate except for 1-2 mistakes." Something that is more tangible? Does that make sense? Thank you VERY much for sharing.
Hi Amanda! Thank you for your feedback! I understand what you mean. I am using the term 'adequately' for a couple of reasons. The interpersonal and presentational rubrics I adopted from Colorado use that type of wording so I want to be consistent. I also like the more vague description because I look at the students' performance with a somewhat holistic approach. Adequate performance would be more than 1 or 2 mistakes for me. Students, whose work is described as 'accurate,' can make a mistake here and there. I've really started looking at the work more holistically as a result of the training I had at an AP institute this past summer. I wrote about it in a June post. Thanks again for your feedback. SO appreciated!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the feedback on my feedback! It is great that you are basing these rubrics on state and national entities, and as an AP teacher, are clearly well trained. Holistic grading is a different approach from point-based grading. When I recommended "1-2 mistakes," I was giving an example of specificity, and not suggesting that should go with "adequately." In your response, you say that "adequate performance would be more than 1 or 2 mistakes for me." I think students would like to know what those descriptors mean. What is "adequate," for example? If I were a student, I would like to know. Good luck with these rubrics, and thanks again for sharing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe with anchor sets?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. It's definitely not an exact science. :)
DeleteI always struggle with using interpretive rubrics. I know that they would help with more descriptive feedback, but how do you use them practically? Do you have questions that go with a reading or listening and grade the questions using a rubric (i.e. 8 pts. per question)? Or do you grade the questions and target each part of the rubric with a question or two and give an assignment grade using the rubric? I'm having a hard time combining the holistic with the concrete for reading and listening.
ReplyDeleteBonjour! Thanks for your comment! Check out the work of Laura Terrill at lauraterril.wikispaces.com. I'm basically reviewing her templates and using them and/or making them my own. By the way, I use a conversion chart to calculate a percentage grade. See the work of Toni Theisen on her wiki site, as well: tonitheisen.wikispaces.com.
DeleteI will post on interpretive tasks as soon as I figure out what works best in my classroom. It's definitely a learning experience that I'm fully embracing -- bumps and all! :)