Section: Module 5: Building and Adapting the Rubric | Micro Certificate: Assessing and Auditing the Collaboration Competency (Intermediate)

Synopsis
The Collaboration rubric has four fixed criteria and four fixed levels; what you adapt is the wording of the descriptors. This module shows how to rewrite each descriptor in the language of your own task, how to separate the levels by quality of reasoning rather than by counting, and how to spot the four faults that make a rubric impossible to apply consistently.

Learning outcome
At the end of this module, you will be able to adapt the four-criterion, four-level rubric descriptors to your own discipline, with levels separated by quality of reasoning.

Look at a rubric you use now. Does any level say “good”, “excellent” or “three or more”? If two colleagues marked the same script with it, would they agree within one level?

Module 5 notes (PDF) File

Sinergi Workbench (sections 05 and 06) URL

Sinergi Workbench

Read The rubric and the worked rubric for your discipline cluster.
For each criterion, rewrite the level 1 and level 4 descriptors for your own task first, naming the actual opposing party, absent group and group product. Then fill levels 2 and 3.
In Self-checks, complete Check 2: name the fault in each of eight rubric items.

Worksheet W4 (optional) File

Optional: record your rubric on Worksheet W4 (download). This activity is not graded.

Module 5 quiz

This quiz has 5 questions drawn at random from a bank of 10.
Time allowed: 15 minutes. Pass mark: 55% (3 of 5 correct).
You may retake the quiz as many times as you need. Your highest score counts.

The generic rubric is the starting point for every discipline. Adapt the wording; keep the criteria, the level names and the judgement each criterion captures.

Criterion	1 Limited	2 Developing	3 Proficient	4 Exemplary
Representing other positions	Describes only their own position	Describes another position but distorts it	States a disagreed-with position accurately	States it accurately enough that its holder would accept the account
Who is absent	Considers only the people in the room	Notes that others exist but not who	Identifies affected groups absent from the process	Identifies the absent groups and what their absence changed
Handling disagreement	Avoids or suppresses the disagreement	Acknowledges it but leaves it unresolved	Works the disagreement through to a position	Works it through and shows how it changed the outcome
Individual contribution	No individual evidence; only the group product	Claims a contribution but cannot show it	Documents what they personally changed, conceded or integrated	Documents it and explains at whose prompting, and why

Write the two ends of each scale first: level 1 is the commonest error and level 4 is the exemplary move. The middle levels follow a gradient that transfers to any competency: level 1 lists, level 2 connects, level 3 justifies, and level 4 treats its own choice as a choice. Separate levels by reasoning, never by counting: one absent group named with what its absence changed is level 4, while three named without it is level 3. Publish the rubric with the brief, and mark all four levels.

Kursus Micro Certificate: Assessing and Auditing the Collaboration Competency (Intermediate): Assessing and Auditing the Collaboration Competency (Intermediate)

Section outline