Skip to main content

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)

Back to Top