Interpersonal Skills & Communication

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I begin to speak while the other person is still speaking, or I wait but drift off-topic and do not pick up the exchange.

I wait for others to finish most of the time but interrupt at predictable points — for instance, when I am excited or when I think I know the answer.

I can take turns in conversation in a short observed roleplay, waiting for others to finish speaking before I respond.

I wait, and when there is a gap, notice whether the other person is actually finished or just pausing before I step in.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I use kind language with some peers or on some occasions but slip into unkind language when I am frustrated or impatient.

My language is kind across most of the exchange, but tone or volume contradicts the words, or I am kind to one person and less kind to another in the same activity.

I can use kind language in my communication with others.

I notice when unkind language would be faster or funnier and choose kind language anyway, and can say why.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I use a 'you' statement (for example 'you are mean') instead of an I-statement, even after being reminded of the sentence stem.

I use the 'I feel…' stem but then switch to blaming language, such as 'I feel you are being mean to me'.

I can apply an I-statement when something has bothered me.

I use an I-statement unprompted in a real moment (not only in practice), naming my feeling and what caused it without attacking the other person.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I repeat what I said but cannot say anything about why I chose those words.

I notice one word I chose but cannot yet say why it was a better choice than an alternative such as 'always' or 'never'.

I can give a brief verbal reflection on the word choice I used in my I-statement.

I compare my I-statement word choice to one alternative wording I considered, and say why my choice was kinder or clearer.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

My I-statement names a feeling but does not name a specific need, or names a need so general it could apply to any scenario.

My I-statement names a need specific to the scenario, but it is stated as a complaint or a wish rather than as a request the other person could act on.

I can use an I-statement to state a specific need in a structured roleplay or scenario-response.

My I-statement names a need and also specifies what the person could do to meet it, so the request is actionable.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I state what I want rather than asking about the other person's boundaries, or I ask without using one of the named stems.

I use a named stem, but the question I attach to it is not about the other person's boundaries (e.g. 'Is it OK if I keep going?' when the issue is what they want).

I can ask about the other person's boundaries using a named stem (e.g. 'Is it okay if...?' or 'Would you be willing to...?').

I use a named stem and also adjust based on the answer, not only if the answer is a 'no.'

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I propose one option, or I propose two options but only one is a genuine solution for both sides.

I propose two options with reasoning, but the reasoning for one option is thin, or the two options are minor variants of each other rather than genuinely different routes.

I can propose two options for a fair solution, with one-sentence reasoning for why each option is fair.

My two options trade off different things from each other (one gives up time, the other gives up ownership) and my reasoning names the trade-off.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I interrupt during the disagreement more than once, or I stay quiet but my body language (turning away, sighing) breaks the listening.

I listen without interrupting only when I agree with what is being said, and start interrupting when the other position conflicts with mine.

I can listen without interrupting in a rubric-assessed roleplay of a disagreement.

I listen without interrupting even when I think the other person is wrong, and my body language shows I am still tracking their argument.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

My response is about the other person's character ('you are always like this') rather than their specific behaviour.

I name a behaviour rather than a character trait but over-generalise ('you always do X'), or I mix behaviour-naming and character-naming in the same sentence.

I can respond using language that names behaviour rather than character (e.g. 'When you said X, I felt Y' rather than 'You are always Z').

My response names the specific behaviour and distinguishes it from what I was making it mean about the person.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I apply one or two steps of the repair routine (usually the apology) but leave out the others, or I apply them out of order in a way that skips the repair.

I apply all four steps, but one of them is going through the motions rather than doing its job (e.g. naming impact without specifying what impact, or repair without change).

I can apply the four-step repair routine when the moment calls for it in a rubric-assessed roleplay.

I notice when the moment does not call for the full four steps and adjust which step carries the weight, while keeping the intention of each.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I state a boundary but it is indirect, conditional, or phrased as a question, so the other person could reasonably not hear it as a boundary.

My boundary is clear but it arrives in the middle of other content (explanations, apologies, justifications) so the boundary does not land as the main point.

I can state a clear boundary in a rubric-assessed conflict roleplay or scenario-based analysis.

My boundary is clear and holds when the other person in the roleplay argues against it, without me escalating or collapsing the boundary.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I respond to my own interpretation of the other person's position rather than paraphrasing what they actually said, or I paraphrase only a fragment.

My paraphrase captures most of their position but misses the part that most matters to them, or edits their position to sound more reasonable than it was.

I can paraphrase the other person's position before responding in a conflict discussion or roleplay.

My paraphrase captures the part of their position I disagree with most, in a way they would recognise as fair, before I respond.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I use the same register across all contexts in the task or roleplay, so my word choice does not change when the context does.

I calibrate word choice to the context, but the calibration is surface (formality, length) rather than changing which words actually carry the point.

I can demonstrably calibrate my word choice to the specific context described in the task or roleplay.

I calibrate word choice to the specific context and can say what I changed, and why a different context would have needed different words.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

My facilitation of the 15-minute conversation slips into taking a position in the disagreement, or fails to ensure all voices are heard across the session.

I manage process rather than positions and maintain a constructive tone for most of the session, but when the disagreement sharpens I revert to managing the content to calm the room.

I can facilitate a rubric-assessed 15-minute structured group conversation in which participants disagree on a substantive question, managing the process rather than the positions, ensuring all voices are heard, and maintaining a constructive tone across the session.

I handle a moment when a quieter participant disagrees with a louder one without suppressing either, by adjusting the process — not by adjusting the content of what either said.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I either fail to adjust my register (sounding out of place) or I adjust so completely that I drop my own perspective to match the other person.

I adjust register well but when my perspective is challenged I either back down or reassert without acknowledging the shift.

I can complete a communication task across significant difference (cultural, generational, or positional) in which I adjust my register and tone to the context without losing my own perspective.

I adjust register consistently across the interaction while keeping my own perspective visible, and I repair when I notice the register slipping.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I describe the interaction without naming any power dynamic at play.

I name a power dynamic (age, status, cultural position) but treat it as background rather than showing how it shaped who got heard in this interaction.

I can demonstrate in written reflection my awareness of the power dynamics shaping who gets heard in cross-difference communication.

I identify specific moments in the interaction where power dynamics shaped attention or legitimacy, including places where my own position carried weight I did not notice at the time.