Keep rubrics like this coming. This is exactly what the Proficiency/OWL
community needs.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Ricardo Linnell <hurricanetumbao@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello All!
Wow! ACTFL was amazing in many ways, but there was one way in particular
that really spoke to me. After the convention, I have continued to stay in
contact with the instructor from my pre-convention workshop. I sent her a
couple of pieces of work and asked her what she thought. One was an end of
2nd year sample and one was an end of 1st year sample. The feedback that
she gave me was awesome in a few ways:
1. I realized just how much QUANTITY is necessary in the ratability of a
sample. There must be enough Qn in order to see if the sample fits the
criteria.
2. My standard of QL was off. I fell back into the "student must conjugate
perfectly" mindset, since no one was answering my question about "how much
is just enough." After speaking to the instructor, I have swung back to
"comprehensibility matters most." Now the question I have is, "what is
comprehensibility, in looking at samples?"
3. I was happy because the end of 2nd year sample that I sent to the
instructor, she said she thought it was at the IM level. I thought so too,
but it just helped to validate the importance of having 100% TL for more
than one year in a row.
....which brings me to this....
I have a rubric to share with you guys. Use it and change it up if you
must, but know that it is designed to hone in on conceptual, partial and
full control of criteria for each sublevel. So far all I have is NM. I plan
to create one for each sublevel all the way up to at least IM. I hope this
can help those of you who may be having the same questions that I have had
(some of which I still have) on leveling samples. Enjoy!
Ricardo
