iRubric: Dialogue rubric

Team members clearly articulate the problems/challenges/issues in the case, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. Evidence of context for the specified population at IU is well described.

Team members clearly articulate the problems/challenges/issues in the case so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. Evidence of the context for the specified population at IU is defined, but could be further examined.

Team members articulate the problems/challenges/issues in the case but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, and/or background for the specified population at IU unknown.

Team members state the problem/issues/challenges in the case without clarification or description. No context for the specified population at IU is provided.

All team members thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' salient identities and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a case. Masterfully articulates how power, privilege, and oppression (self and others) shape the way the issues in the case are considered.

Team members Identify own and others' salient identities and several relevant contexts when presenting a case. Team members articulate how power, privilege, and oppression (self and others) plays a role but does not differentiate how. Perhaps one or more team members monopolize discussion.

Team members question some assumptions about differences in perspectives based on salient identities. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' considerations based on power, privilege, and oppression than one's own (or vice versa). Some voices of team members are missing.

Shows an emerging awareness of present salient identities influencing perspectives on the case. Fails to identify some areas where power, privilege, and oppression play a role in the case. Some voices of team members are missing.

Team members elicit feedback from peers in the discussion of the case and/or application that allows for different insights to be offered. Peers model skills (e.g., asking for clarification or elaboration, discussing biases and assumptions, hearing multiple perspectives, applying class learning contract elements). Peers adapt well as discussion evolves.

Team members elicit feedback from peers in the discussion of the case and/or application. Peers occasionally apply skills (e.g., asking for clarification or elaboration, discussing biases and assumptions, hearing multiple perspectives, applying class learning contract elements). Team members sometimes notice when redirecting and summarizing is needed.

Team members occasionally elicit feedback from peers throughout the dialogue timeframe. When challenges arise, team members withdraw from the process as opposed to redirecting or adapting.

Team members fail to elicit feedback from peers throughout the dialogue timeframe.