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

Section outline

• Select section General

  Collapse Expand

  General

  Collapse all Expand all

  • Select activity Announcements

    

    Announcements Forum
  • Select activity ESDC Preamble Video 00

       

• Select section Course Information

  Collapse Expand

  Course Information

  • Select activity Course information and learning outcomes)

    Collaboration Competency for ESD: Micro Certificate 2 – Assessing and Auditing the Collaboration Competency (Intermediate)
    
    Synopsis

    Micro Certificate 1 showed how to develop Collaboration. This micro certificate shows how to assess it, so that every mark can be defended. You will write a four-clause assessment brief that produces individual evidence even when students work in groups, adapt the four-criterion rubric to your own discipline, and audit your design for alignment and moderation. Everything builds on the topic and activities you planned in Micro Certificate 1. By the end, you will have a complete Collaboration assessment plan for a course you already teach.
    

    Learning outcomes
    At the end of this micro certificate, participants will be able to:

    1. Write a four-clause assessment brief that produces individual, non-divisible evidence of Collaboration.
    2. Adapt the four-criterion, four-level rubric descriptors to their own discipline, with levels separated by quality of reasoning.
    3. Audit their own Collaboration design against the five ways an alignment claim fails, and plan its moderation.

    Course information

    Item	Detail
    Weekly study	About 1 hour per week, self-paced
    Duration	3 hours in total (3 modules of 1 hour each)
    Certificate	Micro Certificate (Intermediate) and 3 UPM digital badges. Together with Micro Certificate 1, it leads to the Macro Certificate in Teaching and Assessing the Collaboration Competency for ESD.
    Level	Intermediate
    Prerequisite	Micro Certificate 1 (recommended)
    Language	English
    Target participants	Lecturers at higher education institutions within and outside UPM, from any discipline
    Faculty	Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia
    Course developers	Prof. Ts. Dr. Zurina Zainal Abidin (lead), Dr. Siti Mastura Md Ishak, Dr. Noris Md Norowi
    Fee	[as set by UPM]

• Select section Course Introduction

  Collapse Expand

  Course Introduction

  • Select activity Welcome

    Welcome
    Welcome to Micro Certificate 2 of Collaboration Competency for ESD. In Micro Certificate 1 you planned two activities that develop Collaboration. Here you learn to assess it: what to ask students to submit, how to mark it fairly, and how to show an auditor the evidence.

    What you will gain: a four-clause assessment brief, a rubric adapted to your discipline, and an audited Collaboration assessment plan with a named second marker.

    Please keep your Worksheets W1 and W2 from Micro Certificate 1 at hand. Everything here builds on them.

  • Select activity Course introduction video

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

    Learning outcomes of this micro certificate

    1. Write a four-clause assessment brief that produces individual, non-divisible evidence of Collaboration.
    2. Adapt the four-criterion, four-level rubric descriptors to your own discipline, with levels separated by quality of reasoning.
    3. Audit your own Collaboration design against the five ways an alignment claim fails, and plan its moderation.
  • Select activity How this course works

    How this course works
    This micro certificate has three modules (Modules 4 to 6). Each takes about one hour and follows the same pattern: a short introduction video, a lecture video, module notes, an activity in Sinergi – The Collaboration Workbench, and a short quiz.

    • Activities. Open the Workbench here: [Workbench link]. Use the same device and browser as in Micro Certificate 1 so your earlier entries are still there. In Module 6 you complete My plan. Use Print or Copy as text to keep it.
    • Quizzes. Each quiz shows 5 questions drawn at random. You need 3 correct (55%) to pass, and you may retake it.
    • Badges. Each module you pass earns a UPM digital badge.
  • Select activity Stacking model

    Certificate	Modules	Badges	Hours
    Micro Certificate 1: Understanding and Teaching the Collaboration Competency (Basic)	1, 2, 3	3	3
    Micro Certificate 2: Assessing and Auditing the Collaboration Competency (Intermediate) – this course	4, 5, 6	3	3
    Macro Certificate in Teaching and Assessing the Collaboration Competency for ESD	Both micro certificates	6	6

  • Select activity Course developers

    Course developers
    Prof. Ts. Dr. Zurina Zainal Abidin (Lead developer) is a Professor of Chemical Engineering in the Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Contact: 03-9769 4371, zurina@upm.edu.my

    Dr. Siti Mastura Md Ishak – (Member), Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Contact: 03-9769 4096, ct_mastura@upm.edu.my

    Dr. Noris Md Norowi – (Member), Multimedia Department, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Contact: 03-8946 6547, noris@upm.edu.my

    

  • Select activity Introduce yourself and your plan

    

    Introduce yourself and your plan Forum

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Post replies: 1

    Post a short introduction (about 100 words) that gives:

    1. Your name, institution and discipline.
    2. The contested topic you chose in Micro Certificate 1 (or one you will use now).
    3. The two activities you planned: one practice, one assessed.

    Then reply to one participant from a different discipline: could four cooperative students finish their assessed activity by dividing the work?

• Select section Module 4: Designing the Assessment

  Collapse Expand

  Module 4: Designing the Assessment

  • Select activity Module 4 banner

    

  • Select activity Synopsis and learning outcome

    Synopsis
    One assignment carries the Collaboration competency. This module shows what that assignment must ask for and why it must produce an individual document, even when the activity is done in groups. It introduces the clause rule, the individual evidence rule and three marking traps that make a Collaboration mark impossible to defend.

    Learning outcome
    At the end of this module, you will be able to write a four-clause assessment brief that produces individual, non-divisible evidence of Collaboration.

  • Select activity Set induction

    Compare two briefs on the same topic: “Discuss the importance of stakeholder collaboration in water management” and “After the negotiation, state the position you argued against so that its holder would accept it.” Which could a student answer without ever meeting another person?

  • Select activity Module 4 introduction video

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

  • Select activity Lecture: Four clauses, one person

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

  • Select activity Module 4 notes (PDF)

    

    Module 4 notes (PDF) File

    Completion

    Students must

    

    View
  • Select activity Sinergi Workbench (section 06)

    

    Sinergi Workbench (section 06) URL

    Completion

    Students must

    

    View

    1. Read The assignment, including the two briefs on the same topic.
    2. Draft your own brief in four clauses, one for each criterion: (a) the opposed position, in a form its holder would accept; (b) the disagreement and how it was worked through, including who was given room; (c) an affected group absent from the process, and what including them would require; (d) what you changed or conceded, at whose prompting, and what you now understand differently.
    3. Apply the one rule to your draft: could a student score full marks without having been in the room? If yes, revise the brief.

    Optional: record your brief on Worksheet W3 (download). This activity is not graded.

  • Select activity Worksheet W3 (optional)

    

    Worksheet W3 (optional) File
  • Select activity Module 4 quiz

    

    Module 4 quiz

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Receive a grade

    

    Receive a passing grade

    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.

  • Select activity Additional information

    • Three fixes for individual attribution work: a revision log, a reflective account written to set prompts, or a peer assessment in which the written justification is marked. A bare peer-rating percentage does not work; it measures popularity.
    • Weight the Collaboration component at 15 to 25 per cent of the course mark. The group event is not marked for the competency.
  • Select activity Module summary

    A brief that can be answered from lecture notes assesses knowledge about collaboration, not the competency. Write the brief in four clauses, one per criterion, so that every criterion has evidence to mark. Attach an individual submission to every group activity, because a group report is evidence of a group. When marking, avoid the three traps: marking the group, marking sincerity and marking the position. Mark the named input, the named person and the stated change.

• Select section Module 5: Building and Adapting the Rubric

  Collapse Expand

  Module 5: Building and Adapting the Rubric

  • Select activity Banner 5

    

  • Select activity Synopsis and learning outcome

    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.

  • Select activity Set induction

    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?

  • Select activity Module 5 introduction video

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

  • Select activity Lecture: Writing levels that two markers can agree on

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

  • Select activity Module 5 notes (PDF)

    

    Module 5 notes (PDF) File

    Completion

    Students must

    

    View
  • Select activity Sinergi Workbench (sections 05 and 06)

    

    Sinergi Workbench (sections 05 and 06) URL

    Completion

    Students must

    

    View

    Sinergi Workbench

    1. Read The rubric and the worked rubric for your discipline cluster.
    2. 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.
    3. In Self-checks, complete Check 2: name the fault in each of eight rubric items.
  • Select activity Worksheet W4 (optional)

    

    Worksheet W4 (optional) File

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

  • Select activity Module 5 quiz

    

    Module 5 quiz

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Receive a grade

    

    Receive a passing grade

    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.

  • Select activity Additional information

    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

  • Select activity Module summary

    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.

• Select section Module 6: Alignment, Moderation and Audit

  Collapse Expand

  Module 6: Alignment, Moderation and Audit

  • Select activity Banner 6

    

  • Select activity Synopsis and learning outcome

    Synopsis
    An auditor reads the alignment table, then asks to see the marked scripts. This module makes that second request survivable. It traces the chain from the Sustainable Development Goal to a single student’s script, sets out the semester schedule and moderation steps, and names the five ways a Collaboration claim fails at audit.

    Learning outcome
    At the end of this module, you will be able to audit your own Collaboration design against the five ways an alignment claim fails, and plan its moderation.

  • Select activity Set induction

    If an auditor asked tomorrow to see evidence that one named student in your course collaborated, which document would you hand over? Would it show that student, or the student’s group?

  • Select activity Module 6 Introduction

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

  • Select activity Lecture: From SDG to script.

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

       

  • Select activity Module 6 notes (PDF)

    

    Module 6 notes (PDF) File

    Completion

    Students must

    

    View
  • Select activity Sinergi Workbench (sections 08 to 10)

    

    Sinergi Workbench (sections 08 to 10) URL

    Completion

    Students must

    

    View

    Sinergi Workbench
    

    1. In Align and audit, check your design against the five failures and the audit checklist.
    2. In Self-checks, complete Check 3: diagnose six real assignments and name the smallest fix for each. Then apply the same two questions to your own assignment.
    3. In My plan, work through the eight steps. The summary at the end writes your course-outline paragraph. Print it, or use Copy as text to keep your full plan.
    4. Write the name of the colleague who will second-mark.
  • Select activity Worksheet W5 (optional)

    

    Worksheet W5 (optional) File

    Optional: record your plan on Worksheet W5 (download). This activity is not graded.

  • Select activity Module 6 quiz

    

    Module 6 quiz

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Receive a grade

    

    Receive a passing grade

    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.

  • Select activity Module 6 – Alignment, Moderation and Audit

    

    Module 6 – Alignment, Moderation and Audit Quiz

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Receive a grade

    

    Receive a passing grade
  • Select activity Additional information

    The semester schedule that the moderation steps assume:

    Suggested week	What you do
    Before semester	Publish the rubric in the course outline, descriptors already adapted
    Week 1	Tell students the competency in plain language, and that a group event will produce an individual mark
    Week 4	Release the brief with the rubric; record the date
    Week 5	Practice activity with self-assessment and one-sentence feedback; no mark
    Week 9	Assessed activity: same rubric, different scenario
    Week 11	Individual submission
    Weeks 12–13	Mark, then second-mark a 10% sample and every borderline case

  • Select activity Module summary

    Only the course learning outcome is directly assessed; the SDG and the programme outcome are claims traced through it to a named criterion and a marked script. The commonest failure is a competency named in the syllabus but required by no assignment. Claim one primary SDG, publish the rubric before submission, calibrate two markers on the same scripts, and second-mark a sample. A plan with no named second marker is an intention, not a plan.

• Select section Closing

  Collapse Expand

  Closing

  • Select activity Closing

    Completion

    Students must

    

    Mark as done

    Congratulations
    You have completed Micro Certificate 2: Assessing and Auditing the Collaboration Competency. If you have also completed Micro Certificate 1, you have finished Collaboration Competency for ESD and now hold a Collaboration assessment plan for a course you teach. The final step is to run it with your students.

       
    
    

  • Select activity Course summary

    You began by separating collaboration from group work, then chose a contested topic and two linked activities with conflict built in. You wrote a four-clause brief that produces individual evidence, adapted the four-criterion rubric to your discipline and audited the design for alignment and moderation. One rule ran through every module: if a student could score full marks without using the competency, you have not assessed it.

  • Select activity Where to go next

    • Run the practice activity in week 5 and the assessed activity in week 9 of your next semester.
    • After the first run, revise weak evidence indicators, never the fixed descriptors.
    • Share your plan with the colleague who will second-mark before the semester begins.
  • Select activity Acknowledgement and references

    Acknowledgement
    This course is adapted from SIM-ESD-CC-01, The Collaboration Competency, developed by PEMACU ESD, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Course development was supported by CADe-Lead, UPM.

    References
    Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2024). Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) (2nd ed.). Malaysian Qualifications Agency.
    PEMACU ESD UPM. (2026). SIM-ESD-CC-01: The collaboration competency (Rev. 4). Universiti Putra Malaysia.
    PEMACU ESD UPM. (2026). Teaching and assessing the eight ESD competencies (1st ed.). Universiti Putra Malaysia.
    UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO.
    UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap (ESD for 2030). UNESCO.