I was trained to use of ACTFL's Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA) rubric. I used it for the year I was with the Chinese Curriculum Group at UH (2016-2017). For our particular context, including myself personally, we found students and instructors slowed down when trying to understand the descriptions of each of the five criteria. I found most of the criteria focused language form--are students communicating using word, sentence, or paragraph-level discourse? Only the "Impact" section on the Presentational rubric gave focus to the content--the actual ideas--in what students were communicating. In 2019 I decided to write my own rubric that would expand and make more central the "Impact" section, and flip the place of language form to become the marginal factor. I wanted a rubric that would constantly remind students what to think about when talking with, or writing for, real people outside (and inside) our classroom--not only scrutinizing language teachers. Good communication involves so much more than speaking and writing "at paragraph level." My newly designed 2019 rubric was a page long, and focused on the information being communicated. Revising it every year, my rubric is now just a half a page long--much better for students to give a routine glance and understand what is expected in their task performances. Students will find "General impressions" at the top, because this is what people typically take away from a conversation, presentation, or text--"She was really funny!" "He was too serious!" "She only shows interest in herself and zero interest in other people!" The next section, split into two subsections, focuses on the information being talked about. Is there a logical sequence between each bit of information, and is there enough information according to the task instructions? Focus on form is relegated to the bottom place, with emphasis on "can I and your interlocutor understand you?"--comprehensibility. I specifically encourage students to take risks with grammar without risking penalty of lost points. I do emphasize accurate Chinese character writing, so I take off a point or two depending on how many characters have problematic strokes. A future rubric of mine might move character accuracy to the top "General Impressions" category, to hammer the idea that Chinese people can be judgy about a person's writing--not just accuracy but general "beauty" of their strokes. There's always more to consider, but, overall, the goal of my rubric is to get students thinking about how general people--not just language teachers--will perceive them when communicating.
I'm attaching a few sample tasks and rubrics here. I created and used these with my BYU-H students, so the Hawai‘i context should be swapped with the local context of your actual students. Click to download (rubric on 2nd page): Chinese 102 Unit 1 Chinese 102 Unit 5 Chinese 102 Unit 6 Enjoy!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Reed Riggs (Author)
Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|