Scholarship in Practice - Collaboration
This rubric is designed for faculty teaching a Scholarship in Practice course or any course that addresses student gains in the follow learning outcome:
At the completion of this course, students will be able to:
• Collaborate in order to bring about a successful outcome
Criterion for review of students work
Team Process
Involves planning, shared responsibilities, functional and interpersonal norms
| Advanced | Proficient | Beginning | Unacceptable |
|---|---|---|---|
|
- Develops and follows a plan to meet project deadlines. - Develops and follows a plan for equitably managing workload. All members actively participate and offer input in team meetings and in team deliverables. - Establishes and follows a set of constructive norms for project management: regular meetings, attendance, deadlines, and time for revision, - Establishes and follows a set of constructive norms to support team member interactions: defines roles, actively listens, openly shares ideas, helps members accomplish personal learning goals |
- Develops and follows a plan to meet project deadlines. - Elicits some participation and some contribution from members during team meetings and team deliverables, although some members may contribute more than others - Establishes and follows some constructive norms for working together: e.g., members meet at agreed upon times & share info - Establishes and follows some constructive norms for team member interactions: e.g., shares ideas, helps members accomplish personal learning goals |
- Engages in minimal planning - Elicits uneven or lopsided participation during team meetings and/or in contribution to team work - Establishes minimally constructive norms for working together: e.g., members have some communication and exchange information |
- Has haphazard or no planning - Relies on one or two members to do most or all of the work; other members do not contribute to task completion - Develops dysfunctional norms for project management: including poor attendance of meetings, non- response of members team communication |
Team Accountability
Involves learning, communication and synthesis
| Advanced | Proficient | Beginning | Unacceptable |
|---|---|---|---|
|
- Includes all members who can explain details of the project and the relevant content. - Communicates in a timely manner and Informs members if individual deadlines cannot be met - Holds members accountable for work quality & timeliness - Synthesizes individual contributions into unified final product |
- Includes a majority of members who can discuss the project and the relevant content. - Communicates about project progress at designated stages - Is reluctant to directly hold members accountable, but will identify non contributors to faculty or TAs -Completes all parts of project in same format with clear areas of integration |
- Has members who can describe only their part of the project and related content. - Communicates nominally during project, e.g. poor sharing of planned deadlines - Fails to hold members directly accountable for non-participation but will report on members contributions in a passive manner when prompted at the completion of the project - Creates projects that include most required parts with a few transitions between independent sections. |
- Has members who are unable to report on any part of the project or related content. - Communication is passive aggressive or anger - Produces a final project with one point of view or that is disjointed and missing sections |
Team Climate/Culture
Involves leveraging diversity, interpersonal cohesion and feedback seeking
| Advanced | Proficient | Beginning | Unacceptable |
|---|---|---|---|
|
- Actively encourages members to express opposing points of view --Constructively manages and looks for ways to synthesize divergent perspectives. - Depersonalizes conflict - Gives each other constructive feedback - Has members who seem to like each other - Seeks out external feedback - Responds constructively to external feedback, discerns essence of & reconciles divergent feedback |
- Includes opportunities for members to voice dissenting ideas at specific stages - Considers some dissenting perspectives even if team doesn’t fully explore these, and/or finds ways to manage internal disagreements (e.g., take a break) to keep them from becoming divisive - May contain factions with unresolved disagreements - Accepts feedback and attempts to incorporate appropriately |
- Avoids conflicts where possible and focuses on achieving internal cohesion at expense of considering divergent ideas - Relies on simplistic procedures (e.g., “majority rules”) to manage or resolve conflicts, or Asks faculty members to resolve internal conflicts - Seeks premature resolution of disagreements to maintain appearance of harmony or to ensure completion of the project - Refrains from giving direct feedback, instead asks faculty members to resolve internal interpersonal conflicts - Responds to external feedback in an “all or nothing” manner |
- Unable to find resolutions for internal disagreements - Personalizes conflicts between members to the point where members cannot work together - Gives highly disparaging or personal feedback - Has members who dislike and/or avoid each other - Dismisses or ignores external feedback |
This rubric was prepared by an ad hoc group whose members were selected by the Office of Undergraduate Studies for their experience in teaching with team projects: Erica Estrada-Liou (Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship), Melissa Hayes-Gehrke (Astronomy), Madlen Simon (Architecture), Kristan Cilente Skendall (Gemstone), Melissa Del Rios (Office of Undergraduate Studies) Ann C. Smith (Office of Undergraduate Studies) Cynthia K. Stevens (Office of Undergraduate Studies)