Le débat : quand la correction nuit à l'interaction
In Unit 3, Area of Study 1 (Interpersonal communication), students take part in a small-group discussion in French on a topic studied in class, and are assessed on their ability to exchange information, opinions and experiences, and to sustain the interaction. During a practice discussion, a student, Nadia, speaks accurately but waits for the teacher to correct her before continuing, produces short turns, and rarely responds to what others say. Another student, Karim, makes more errors but asks follow-up questions, concedes points, and keeps the exchange going. The teacher is unsure whom to rate higher and worries that rewarding Karim 'rewards errors'. The rubric weights interaction and communication alongside range and accuracy.
1. Explain how the teacher should weigh interaction against accuracy in this discussion task, and justify the judgement.
Read the worked answer
The teacher should rate Karim higher on the interaction dimension while still recording Nadia's accuracy advantage. The task's stated purpose is to exchange information, opinions and experiences and sustain the interaction, so interaction is a primary criterion, not a bonus.
- Nadia demonstrates accuracy but does not sustain interaction: she depends on correction, produces minimal turns, and does not build on others' contributions. Her accuracy is real but is not being used to achieve the communicative purpose.
- Karim makes errors yet performs the interaction: follow-up questions, concessions, turn-taking. These are the behaviours the outcome describes.
Rewarding Karim does not reward errors; it rewards communicative achievement. Errors can be noted in feedback and addressed separately. The two dimensions should be reported distinctly so the profile is fair to both students.
2. Identify what evidence the teacher should collect to support these judgements, and explain why that evidence matters.
Read the worked answer
Evidence to collect:
- Turn-by-turn notes showing length and type of contribution (initiating, responding, building on another's point).
- Examples of interaction strategies: asking a follow-up question, expressing agreement or disagreement, seeking clarification, conceding.
- Samples of error types and whether they impede communication (e.g. errors that block meaning versus minor slips).
- Notes on dependence on correction, e.g. pauses awaiting teacher input.
Why it matters: judgements must be defensible and attributable, and memory of a single discussion is unreliable. Concrete evidence lets the teacher justify a mark on interaction separately from accuracy, shows the student what to improve, and protects against the charge that errors were rewarded or that fluency was ignored. It also supports consistency across students and groups.