(for Continuous Assessment Students)

Students who wish to improve their final grade may complete a single in-person practical assessment (individual) on 17th April.

 

Any student who wants to do the Final Grade Improvement Assessment must register on Fénix (under groups)

 

The assessment is designed to evaluate the same core competencies already assessed in the course’s regular evaluation model, namely: communication debugging, decision making through structured communication, communication norms, stakeholder update, and repair communication. It remains fully consistent with the practical and oral nature of the course assessment model.

 

Weight

100% of the grade improvement assessment. The new grade replaces the previous course grade only if it is higher.

 

Format

The assessment is individual and consists of:

  • 30 minutes of written preparation, in class, based on a scenario provided on the spot;
  • One short oral performance (maximum 5 minutes) delivered individually, without slides;
  • Students may use their preparation notes during the oral performance (it´s not a memory test).

 

The written preparation exists only to support performance. The assessment is graded through the oral presentation and oral responses.

 

Task Structure

The assessment is based on one integrated professional scenario and includes three parts:

 

Part 1 — Communication Debugging


The student must:

  • identify assumptions, attribution errors, ambiguity, or possible misunderstandings;
  • reformulate a problematic message for clarity and psychological safety;
  • propose clarification /de-escalation lines, integrated in the reformulation;
  • propose an appropriate channel and next step.

 

Part 2 — Meeting to Decision


The student must:

  • present a clear decision in response to the scenario;
  • explain the main tradeoffs considered;
  • present a concise decision log;
  • propose 3 communication norms appropriate to the situation.

 

 

Part 3 — Stakeholder Communication Simulation


The student must:

  • deliver a short stakeholder update;
  • answer one stakeholder question;
  • respond to one complaint or tension point, demonstrating trust repair and professional communication.

 

Timing of the Oral Performance

Recommended maximum duration per student:

  • Communication Debugging: 1 minute
  • Decision Brief + Decision Log + Communication Norms: 1 minute 30 seconds
  • Stakeholder Update: 1 minute 30 seconds
  • Stakeholder Question: 30 seconds
  • Complaint Repair: 30 seconds

 

Maximum oral time: 5 minutes. The presentation is terminated after 5 minutes.

 

Assessment Criteria

The assessment is graded on a 0–20 scale, according to the following dimensions:

 

  • Communication Debugging — 6 points

 

1. Facts vs. interpretations + assumptions /2

2 = Clearly separates facts from interpretations; identifies relevant assumptions, ambiguous terms, or attribution leaps.
1 = Partial separation; some assumptions identified, but with gaps.
0 = Mostly opinion-based or unclear; assumptions not identified.

2. Clarity rewrite /2

2 = Rewrite is clear, structured, actionable, and specific.
1 = Rewrite improves the message but remains somewhat vague or incomplete.
0 = Rewrite is unclear, confusing, or minimally improved.

3. Psychological safety + next step /2

2 = Uses neutral, non-blaming language; includes validation/clarification; proposes an appropriate channel and next step.
1 = Some safety cues present; channel or next step is weak.
0 = Tone remains escalatory, defensive; lacks channel or a next step.

 

  • Meeting to Decision — 6 points

 

1. Decision clarity and tradeoffs /2

2 = Clear decision, relevant trade-offs, strong reasoning.
1 = Decision is understandable, but trade-offs or reasoning are partial, vague or underveloped.
0 = Decision in unclear, unsupported, or not meaningfully present.

2. Decision Log /2

2 = Complete, clear and actionable decision log.
1 = Partially complete decision log; one or more elements are missing or unclear.
0 = Missing, confusing or not actionable.

3. Communication Norms /2

2 = Three clear, relevant and actionable norms, relevant to the quality of the meeting (support effective teamwork by improving psychological safety, participation and dissent opportunities).

1 = Norms are somewhat relevant, but too generic, unclear, incomplete, or fewer than three are well developed.
0 = Norms are missing, inappropriate, or not meaningfully explained.

 

  • Stakeholder Communication — 8 points

 

1. Stakeholder update /4

4 = Clear and well-structured; translates technical issues into outcomes, risks, uncertainty, and next steps; includes action orientation.
3 = Good and understandable, with minor gaps.
2 = Reasonable but somewhat vague, too technical, or incomplete.
1 = Hard to follow, poorly structured, or weakly connected to stakeholder needs.
0 = Not demonstrated.

2. Stakeholder question /2

2 = Direct, non-defensive answer; uses clarification if needed; returns to plan and next steps.
1 = Partially answers, but drifts, becomes too technical, or slightly defensive.
0 = Avoids the question, escalates tension, or contradicts the update.

3. Complaint repair /2

2 = Calm, professional, accountable; acknowledges impact; clarifies the issue; offers repair action and next update.
1 = Some repair effort, but tone, structure, or action plan is weak.
0 = Dismissive, defensive, escalatory, or no repair action.

 

Important Notes

This assessment does not evaluate extroversion or memorization. As in the regular course model, students are evaluated on clarity, structure, and professional interaction. Notes are allowed during the oral performance.

 

Expected across the whole oral presentation:

  • concise and within time;
  • clear oral organization;
  • professional tone;
  • ability to use notes without reading mechanically.