Not Evident

Approaching Competence

Competent

A. Description of Conversation

An explanation of what happened during the disagreement is not provided.

The explanation is missing or unclear details of what occurred during the disagreement. Or the description of the situation or bioreaction(s) is unclear or includes minimal details of when the disagreement occurred. Or the explanation is missing the conclusion of the conversation.

The explanation includes contextual details of what occurred during the disagreement, including a clear description of the situation and bioreaction(s) experienced, the realization that there was disagreement, and the conclusion of the conversation.

B. Analysis of Conversation

An analysis of the conversation is not provided.

An analysis of the conversation includes an unclear description of the listening levels of both parties, or it does not reference the four levels of conversation meter. Examples of specific behaviors, language, and tone are poorly detailed or insufficiently support the listening levels identified for either parties; or the analysis includes an unspecific or missing discussion of point(s) of alignment or disagreement.

The analysis of the conversation includes a description of the listening levels of both parties, according to the four levels of conversation meter. Examples of specific feelings, behaviors, language, or tone are well detailed and support the level of listening identified for both parties. The analysis also includes an appropriate discussion of point(s) of alignment or disagreement.

C. Impact of Conversation

A reflection on how the conversation encouraged the candidate to listen differently is not provided.

The reflection demonstrates a lack of, or unclear, understanding of the effect of listening differently during the disagreement, including an impractical explanation of how accuracy and authenticity can be used to improve the conversation. The reflection includes unclear insights of how incorporating listening for needs, purpose, and concern can create value in a conversation, or it does not address how that would look in practice.

The reflection on how the conversation encouraged the candidate to listen differently demonstrates a thorough understanding of the effect of listening differently during the disagreement, including a feasible explanation of how accuracy and authenticity could be used to improve the conversation.

The reflection includes insights on how incorporating listening for needs, purpose, or concern create value in a conversation and what that looks like in practice.

DE. Professional Communication

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.