iRubric: Dialogue 2 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.

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 of self and others, hearing multiple perspectives, applying class brave space ideas). 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 brave space ideas). 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.