When Interpersonal Speaking Turns Into Script Reading in French 2

The task is probably too open and too grammar-focused for independent Novice Mid performance. Interpersonal speaking is spontaneous, unrehearsed interaction; reading a written script is presentational, not interpersonal, so that pair is not meeting the target mode at all. The pair switching to English likely lacks circumlocution strategies and the confidence to make errors; at Novice Mid, students can ask and answer simple questions on familiar topics but need models, repetition, and predictable frames. The silent pair may be overwhelmed by the open prompt or afraid of being graded on grammar accuracy. The rubric itself is part of the problem: pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar are listed, but interaction-asking questions, responding, keeping the conversation going-is not. Mr. Diallo should treat the first attempt as formative evidence, not as a summative grade. The diagnosis is not that students are lazy; it is that the task demands more spontaneous language than they have been scaffolded to produce.

He should model the interaction with a student, then provide an information-gap task rather than an open prompt: each partner has a half-schedule of weekend activities and must ask questions to complete it. Give sentence frames on the board (“Tu vas…? - Oui, je vais… / Non, je ne vais pas…”), a short list of time expressions, and three bullet notes allowed-not a script. Teach two circumlocution phrases (“Je ne sais pas le mot… c’est quand on…”) and let students practice switching to French when stuck. Re-pair students so the script-writing pair works with a stronger model, but keep the task identical. For the summative task, use a new but similar information-gap: ask about a partner’s weekend, then report one finding to the class. Grade with a Novice Mid interpersonal rubric: asks and answers simple questions, responds comprehensibly, attempts to keep the exchange going, and uses practiced vocabulary. Grammar accuracy should be a minor category, not the main event.

He should not grade the script-reading performance as interpersonal speaking, because it does not assess the targeted mode. Instead, he can use the first attempt as formative documentation and grade the follow-up information-gap task. Fairness requires the same task and rubric for all pairs, not secretly giving some students easier questions. If a pair still relies on English, the rubric should show partial credit for communicating meaning but note the need for French strategies; the consequence should be reteaching, not a zero. A short retake or second round within the same class period is reasonable. He should also separate fluency from accuracy: a student who asks three clear questions with errors may score higher on interpersonal communication than a student who recites a perfect script. Finally, he should document the adjustment. If an administrator asks why the grade changed, the answer is assessment validity: the first task measured memorization, and the second measured the actual standard.