So lately everyone’s excited about the “DEA” — the Daily Engagement Assessment. Engagement is crucial to language acquisition, right? And how can the teacher know if the students are engaged unless they show that they are engaged, by responding using specific behaviors that can be observed? (Hmmm…starting to sound a lot like the Evil Danielson Framework. But I digress.)
Engagement is definitely something we seek in the classroom. But should engagement be measured and graded? Those who support these systems say yes. You have a responsibility as a student to come into the classroom and do what you are told to do. And hey, it’s all really simple stuff, right? Make eye contact. Answer out loud. The claim is that these systems are measuring “engagement”, not behavior or participation, and that the behaviors being rated are “correlated with the principles of CI.”
Except that they aren’t.
Comprehensible Input means that the brain hears language it matches to meaning, and in this way, it constructs a grammar and lexicon (essentially a list of rules and vocabulary words) for the language that’s coming in. It has NOTHING at all to do with what the acquirer looks like or does while that is happening — other than some listening has to take place.
Now, it might seem very innocuous to give a grade based on students adhering to a simple set of rules (which, I’m sorry, still look a lot like a list of behaviors to me). And that’s great if that list were composed of things that everyone in your classroom was naturally comfortable doing.
Let’s turn the clock back a few years. Quite a few. But anyway. Remember “back in the day” when it was not acceptable to be left-handed? Students who showed up to school favoring their left hand or insisting stubbornly on writing using their left hands were forced to use their right hands instead. Some had their left hands tied up; others were actually beaten or otherwise punished to make them “behave correctly”. Because they “obviously” could, and should, be doing things the way everyone else did.
We would never dream of forcing a left-handed student to use his right hand in a classroom today. No language teacher would take away points if a left-handed student wrote on the board using his left hand, or raised his left hand to answer, or whatever.
In today’s classrooms, we have a significant group of students who are non-neurotypical. Many are somewhere on the autism spectrum. For these students, behaviors that are “easy” for others can be uncomfortable or downright impossible. (Affective filter, anyone?) Add to this a phenomenon called “autistic inertia” that sometimes prevents autistic people from doing things they have decided they want to do — actually prevents them from beginning the action or task, even though they want to do it. And before anyone claims that every one of these students will have an IEP in place, let me tell you that they do not. There are many, many kids out there who have not been identified, especially when they are otherwise “smart” or “good in school”.
Still sound like a good idea to mark down for lack of eye contact or answering out loud?
As TPRS teachers, we teach to the eyes. Actually, that is a misnomer. We teach to the eyes of our NT (neurotypical) students. But for many of our neurodivergent students, we have to teach to the heart, not the eyes. We need to take our students where they are — not ONLY in terms of language skills, something we all agree on, but also in terms of their neurology. Any system that rates behaviors across the board on minutae like eye contact is only for the convenience of the teacher, not for the betterment of language acquisition.
Don’t do it. Just don’t do it. You don’t know who you’ll be turning away from the language. Even those kids who are perhaps neurotypical but aren’t making eye contact as you’d like — ever asked yourself why? Is your input really as interesting and student-centered as you think? Are you going at a pace that ensures that everyone really does understand? Is there anything else going on in that kid’s life that could just possibly be impacting the way he presents in class?
The possible collateral damage is enormous. The benefit is slim. Don’t do it.
Late edit (8/19/16): wow, this “Whole Body Listening Larry” sure sounds a lot like DEA, doesn’t it? And, as the author points out, it’s not about listening. It’s about reassuring the speaker: https://danialexis.net/2015/04/17/deconstructing-active-listening/
Terry, I am so glad you tackled this subject head on. You are fearless. I read the posts on DEA last year. I was transitioning away from grading effort in my class and was afraid that some students (really parents) would react to my grades being fully proficiency based. I just did not have the time or the patience to keep up with all those behaviors every single day for every single student. I also know by now that some of my best students do not show minimal participation for so many reasons… but when I assess them, they prove to me that they have acquired what we have been doing in class. Anyway, last year was my first year of only measuring what my students “Can Do”. It was nerve wrecking for some of my students who depend on their homework and extra credit and doing all the right things in class to get good grades. Only one of my students ended up with a C (he struggles in all his classes). The rest earned As and Bs because I made sure they would acquire and succeed before moving on. I still struggle with teaching too much content instead of just personalizing, personalizing, personalizing. But your posts are a constant source of encouragement and guidance for me… I am getting better! This year, I am not going to plan any “novels” or “content” the first month… and just focus on the kids…. scary… but I know if I teach to the “heart” I will always succeed!
I assume your grading method is 100% proficiency based. Can you talk about what grades are based on in your class more specifically?
Yes.
Categories are speaking, listening, reading, mechanical writing and compositional writing. (I separate the two types of writing since I teach Chinese and there is a distinction between simply forming the characters by whatever means and being able to compose a piece of writing.)
It’s easy this way to see what a student really needs help with, rather than seeing a category like “quizzes” that really doesn’t give any information as to where a problem might lie.
How does your system account for students who acquire skills more slowly than what is considered typical? Are their grades lower? Do you make a distinction between learners who appear to put forth effort but fall short vs learners who fall short but do not seem as invested as their peers? If so, how do you make that distinction? If not, do you find that students who acquire more slowly get discouraged by receiving grades that are lower than their peers (because we all know they discuss/compare/compete whether we like it or not)? Wouldn’t that heighten their effective filter?
I’m not the SBG guru — look up Scott Benedict. He will probably be more equipped to address your specific questions.
But I am very, very much against grading:
grit
effort
attention
“engagement”
or anything else that is non-linguistic.
Unless there is a separate effort and conduct grade, which the school specifically intends for that purpose.
Terry, I have a great deal of respect for you as an educator which is why I frequent your blog and value your advice in the forums. Forgive me if my response is harsh, but I find this post extremely misguided. Let me preface it by saying I don’t believe I have the perfect grading system. I think the perfect system is one of ungraded feedback regarding proficiency and goal setting. But as we all know, grades are mandatory for most of us.
I don’t think it is fair to opt out of the exchange by saying you are not the guru of SBG. If you don’t have an answer for how you accommodate different types of learners with your grading system, than your system raises the exact same concerns you outline for proponents of DEA. For example if speaking is a percentage of the grade, what about students who have a longer than typical silent period? What about students who are slow writers? What about students with auditory processing issues? As you mentioned on another forum, not all students with these issues have IEP’s. Still, I’m willing to bet you make modifications and customizations for students like these. If you don’t then we’re back to the “left-handed learner” scenario.
I have a system similar to DEA (I don’t call it that and I’ve been using it since before I ever heard the term), and it’s benefit is primarily as a reflection tool. I think it is important to be explicit about what are typically the habits most conducive to language acquisition (and learning in general) just like ELA teachers teach into the habits of good readers or good writers. In my classroom students periodically evaluate themselves on these habits and, yes, it becomes a significant factor in their grade. It doesn’t mean I “take off points” every time I see a kid not making eye contact with me. In fact, as an example, I have a student who is immature for his age and also suffers from anxiety, ADD, hyperactivity, etc. He and I have had discussions about how it is ok for him to move about the room during story asking as long as he does this in a way that is non-disruptive. He even has the option of going to my desk and sit in my swivel chair.
Rather than being a system of penalization. It’s a fail safe for students who are doing everything they can but are not acquiring at the same rate as their peers. They may have low assessment scores, but it’s balanced out by their DEA grade, This helps keep them from getting discouraged and honors their individual rate of acquisition. They still receive feedback about their proficiency levels and individual goals so it’s not as if they are being misled in any way about where they are regarding proficiency.
Most of the time a high DEA grade correlates to high assessment grades (speaking, writing, listening and reading) which helps justify teaching into these habits. For those who acquire quickly and easily but don’t display these behaviors, that’s fine as long as they are not disturbing others. There is no penalty in that case. If they are disturbing others, I need to investigate and see if I can provide a non-disruptive solution for their behavior. If they are just being blatantly disrespectful to the community, then it should impact their grade. Very often a low DEA score correlates to low scores on assessments and requires more intervention on behalf of the teacher about what accommodations can be made to help them succeed. I assume you do the same for students receiving low grades in your classes.
Rather than equating these educators with 19th century teachers who humiliated, beat, and tied up left-handed children; I suggest you give proponents of DEA the same benefit of the doubt you would like to be given–that they make adjustments based on knowing their students like all quality professional educators. For those who don’t, the issue isn’t DEA, it’s the teacher.
I’m sorry you feel that way. My referring you to Scott Benedict — who really is the “guru of SBG”, IMHO — was an attempt to get you better answers from someone who specializes in this area (and who probably teaches a language you do, rather than Chinese.)
However — having said that:
If you are not neurodiverse, and don’t have anyone close to you who is (whether formally identified or not, whether considered “severe” or not — because it’s the borderline people who seem to suffer the most from being misinterpreted and molded) you cannot have any inkling of what it is like being in a neurotypical classroom under a neurotypical teacher being expected to do neurotypical things all. day. long. It is PRECISELY like teachers beating up on left-handed kids. Forcing behaviors that can be physically painful or mentally distressing. Do you have the least idea how much energy and focus it takes simply to look and sound like “everyone else”, so you can then start trying to do what everyone else is trying to do from that convenient “zero starting line” set based on their “normal”?
The key point in standards-based grading of linguistic elements is that every child (who has normal hearing) can acquire spoken language. Every human being does. So we can expect all our students to acquire spoken language. We are hired by the school district to help children learn languages, and we are supposed to evaluate the degree to which the children have done so over the content dictated for that year. It is, dare I say, appropriate for a situation where there is a job contract involved with a public school. (Though you and I definitely agree that no grading at all is the best thing, ideally.)
But we CANNOT expect students who are neurodiverse to “toe the line” and act and look like neurotypical teachers expect (want, hope, feel) they should look and act, because those behaviors aren’t human universals. “Back in the day” it was considered abnormal to be: left-handed, gay, black, a woman in a classroom, take your pick. Neurodiversity hasn’t yet been added to the list because as of today, the neurodiverse are just about the only group it’s still “okay” to not treat like everyone else. They are diverse even as a group, very individual in the presentation of their differences, and often hide themselves in an effort to “pass” because of what happens when they do not.
It’s unfortunate that neurodiverse behaviors are so — what? Threatening? I don’t know — to mainstream people. But no, it is never okay to grade children on those kinds of behaviors as language teachers.
When I even hear about teachers deciding that they are going to grade students on learning behaviors that have not been shown to be linked in any way to language acquisition — not simply playing the school game, but firmly linked to language acquisition — then I’m sorry, I call foul. And even in the case of the odd child who is just being a jerk — deliberately disturbing the class for whatever reason — I see no reason to link undesirable behavior (which we all know as educators is generally linked to some reason, as children are not simply packages of evil by nature) to class grades. Why in the world would you lower a child’s achievement grade, thus saying to the world that the child’s Spanish/French/Whatever is poor, when the issue is really his behavior?
I am not questioning that teachers apply rules differently in the case of individual students. I am questioning whether a set of rules that fails to apply to so many students, and more importantly which has not been shown to be linked to language acquisition, should be incorporated as a source of grades for a system evaluating language acquisition. That makes no sense to me.
If you doubt what I’m saying about how much effort it takes for ND people to “pass”, talk to those autistic teacher-colleagues about this one. If you have any at your school. Which I doubt — because all those ‘spectrum’ behaviors are ‘disturbing’ and make colleagues ‘uncomfortable’. Only when you’re an adult, you don’t get graded down, you get pushed out. And believe me, being “trained” by aversive penalties in a classroom is not going to change them. Being born 50 years in the future, when this group has been added to the list of “they’re like that for a reason — and notice how many of them there really are”, maybe.
Terry, You and I completely agree on everything you said about respecting neurodivergent learners. That said, I do think you are making too many assumptions and generalizations about teachers’ experiences with and understanding of nerurodivergent learners, as well as about the level of willingness and desire teachers have in maintaining inclusive classrooms. In fact, based on what I read daily in the forums and blogs, the desire for inclusivity is the primary draw for teachers who convert to TPRS.
I also want to make sure we are defining DEA the same way. I think Lance Piantaggini defines it well as Paying Attention (look, listen, ask) and Being Prepared (showing up with materials). I would add Following Instructions, which I personally emphasize more than being prepared. If this isn’t how you define it, then I probably spent way too much time on the response below.
There may not be a body of research around whether or not the above behaviors lead to acquisition, but then again I kind of love the thought of a study entitled “The Effects of Paying Attention on Second Language Acquisition.” The idea that LOOKING at the translation of the word that the teacher is pointing to; LISTENING to the story being asked; and ASKING a question when something isn’t comprehensible are not best practices for language acquisition is frankly preposterous if you already buy into Krashen’s research on CI. How else are you going to receive the input without these “behaviors”? An analogy about a horse and some water comes to mind right about now.
You still haven’t addressed my concern that SBG does not respect the fact that individuals each acquire language at their own rate. As I mentioned earlier, DEA is the failsafe for learners who acquire more slowly—Ss who acquire at a normal or exceptional rate are not penalized. You never acknowledged this. You also never acknowledged the ability to make accommodations for neurodiversity under DEA (I gave you the swivel chair example) And yes, I agree that Ss who are being downright rude/disrespectful have other issues that need to be addressed in other ways. If a student is LOOKING, LISTENING, and ASKING QUESTIONS this should count for something! After all, it’s not unheard of for the silent period in first language acquisition to last up to four years in a neurotypical child.
Where is the research that demonstrates that SBG makes neurodiverse Ss more comfortable in class than a system that emphasizes a combination of proficiency and engagement? You say that Ss should not be graded on behaviors that are uncomfortable, yet your grade categories are Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. What about Ss still terrified to utter a word in March? Does their grade suffer? What about Ss who love to speak up but can’t seem to write down more then 4-5 words in a sitting? What about Ss whose auditory processing issues make listening assessments a disaster? What about Ss who suffer from such severe anxiety that ANY type of assessment is a disaster? I can name a student for each of the examples I named above. You probably can too. This is precisely WHY I make engagement/participation/DEA/whatever-you-want-to-call-it 50% of the grade (and make modifications for Ss that genuinely struggle with the engagement criteria as it has been defined in my classroom). I brought this argument up earlier but it was never answered directly.
Can you be so sure that SBG truly reflects achievement? I’ve attempted proficiency-based grading in the past and I found that it actually had a more negative effect on student confidence. What’s more, there is no assurance that graded assessments truly reflect what a child is capable of under more organic circumstances. Also, graded assessments are only a very small snapshot of what students can actually do. It’s extremely difficult to fully capture a student’s abilities based on a handful of graded assessments.
Speaking of research, can you point to research that lays out exactly WHEN Ss should achieve particular benchmarks in acquisition? If you are grading based on benchmarks for proficiency, then you are teaching to the neurotypical. And guess what? You don’t have much of a choice do you? All you can do is try to make an imperfect system work the best it can and be as inclusive as you can when you have 32 kids with different needs and abilities together in a cramped classroom. For nearly all of us, our classrooms are governed by norms, procedures, and expectations that benefit the neurotypical out of necessity. Is this ideal? HELL NO. Is there an alternative that doesn’t involve burning our education system down to the ground and starting over? No.
(But I am kind of all for that, actually.)
I will try to be concise, though at this point I’m repeating myself, and I will say openly that I don’t intend to post more comments on this thread as the thread is not progressing.
1. You are grading behavior. You are not grading language alone. We are teaching language, not behavior.
2. You are, at this point, ignoring the whole point: that there is an enormous pool of students out there who are not neurotypical. Grading behaviors that are unnatural and painful for your students is not a good idea. You continue to post about the minutiae of SBG rather than addressing this fact. This argument is not about SBG, and SBG has nothing to do with the idea of grading students on behaviors and appearances.
3. Implementing a big poster on the wall grading system from which a bunch of students need to be exempted doesn’t make sense. Implementing a participation grading system that demands behaviors that are not tied to acquisition doesn’t make sense. Grading participation in the first place doesn’t make sense, and using that grade to cut a student’s language grade for non-compliance makes even less sense.
3. You are making some very far-fetched assumptions about what is necessary for acquisition. Looking is necessary? Well, gosh, I guess blind people can’t acquire language?
Teachers like kids to look and act “like they should”. They have for many years. Only the list of behaviors that can be attacked has changed over the years, and will continue to change.
Talked to that autistic teacher-colleague yet? Thought not. Kinda tough to find, aren’t they?
I have been reflecting on your argument that it is unfair to define what it means to be engaged. I think I have always instinctively agreed with you on this point by making all sorts of accommodations and allowances in my engagement criteria for different students in my classroom; but then, like you say—what’s the point if there are so many caveats?
Also, upon further reflection, I can see what you mean about SBG as being a separate argument. It wasn’t an intentional straw man though, because I was legitimately trying to understand why an engagement grade as a failsafe wasn’t a way to make some students—including some members of the neurodiverse community—feel less anxious about grades. I was thinking of learners who exhibit more widely recognized engagement behaviors just fine but can’t perform well on assessments. The Dani Alexis article you recently offered has shed some light and helped me to reconsider the relationship between “engagement behaviors” and acquisition. You should have led with that!
Another reason I was having a lot of trouble seeing that I actually agree with you, is because my legitimate questions about SBG were rejected and dismissed as irrelevant minutiae. I don’t think the questions I was asking are trivial or irrelevant to the conversation at all and I don’t think enough proponents of SBG are taking these issues into account. If a teacher practices SBG but isn’t consciously making accommodations for neurodiverse learners, I’m not convinced they’ll be any better off. Just because you don’t hang a poster on the wall doesn’t mean you aren’t favoring neurotypical behaviors. I also think my questions were relevant to the original discussion because you were proposing that there was harm in the way some teachers grade without allowing discussion of beneficial alternatives. Understanding of what to do instead (solutions) is what I was trying to get at.
At any rate, I’ve been thinking it over and am starting to come up with my own solutions that don’t involve am engagement grade. I would still like to hear about what others have attempted or implemented in order to honor the individual pace of language acquisition (or ability to effectively demonstrate acquisition). So to reiterate my question:
1) How can we implement a proficiency-based system without discouraging or raising the affective filter of learners who don’t demonstrate acquisition at a typical rate?
And another one that I brought up less explicitly:
2) How can we maintain a productive and safe learning environment for all, without setting expectations for behavior that may exclude neurodiverse learners?
One more thing, Terry. The other aspect of your argument that distracted from your larger point was your ad hominem assumption/argument that I do not empathize with neurodiverse learners because (supposedly) I do not have loved ones or students who are neurodiverse, or have regular dialogue with teachers who specialize in autism. I feel uncomfortable listing my “credentials” publicly to prove a point. In the first place, it is a fallacy to proclaim that this criteria precludes a person from comprehending the struggle of neurodiverse individuals. Secondly, if you email me privately, I would be more than willing to discuss with you in detail the family members, close friends, and yes, students past and present that struggle/have struggled with autism and other neurodiverse conditions as well as talk with you about the successes my school has had with inclusion. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that I should continue to investigate how to best accommodate neurodiverse learners in my classroom. As should we all! Thanks for starting that discussion, Terry.