Communicating with Courage
How to Assess Agile Communication in the Age of AI
A few years ago, after a discussion in my first-year seminar class in which we practiced navigating tough conversations, several students stayed behind. “I’ve never been taught how to talk to someone who disagrees with me,” they said. “I just thought if you didn’t agree, you were supposed to argue and try to win. But that doesn’t really work.”
They were right, arguing and pressing your own point rarely works as a successful communication tool in real life and real relationships. People rarely change their minds about something through a one time argument. Instead, change tends to come through relationship, through connection, and over time. That conversation stayed with me, not because it revealed a gap in knowledge, but because it revealed a gap in formation. I realized that we were giving students the tools to give one time 3 minutes speeches, write a 4 paragraph paper or maybe even engage cleverly in a debate. But, we were missing the opportunity to equip them to communicate with courage and to understand the deep human dimension of communication of building connections between one another.
In a time when AI can write a speech or summarize a meeting, our most urgent task isn’t teaching students to generate words. Generating words comes really easy these days. Instead, our most urgent task is teaching them how to use language to build trust, listen across differences, and engage with integrity in a changing world. This is the work of agile communication, and it is deeply human.
What Is Agile Communication?
Agile communication is the ability to communicate clearly, ethically, and with empathy across platforms, disciplines, and audiences. It includes the capacity to adjust in real time, hold space for disagreement, and move a conversation forward without abandoning curiosity or care.
It draws on emotional intelligence, listening, humility, and strategy. And, we believe that in an era of AI-generated content, it is one of the most irreplaceable human skills.
Dee Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning (Fink, 2013) offers a helpful structure for assessing this work. In particular, agile communication intersects with three of Fink’s six dimensions:
Application – Students practice communication as a skill: structuring arguments, adapting to audience, and using dialogue to solve problems.
Integration – Students connect communication to identity, ethics, context, and disciplinary learning.
Human Dimension – Students reflect on who they are as communicators and how they engage with others.
Let’s explore how this kind of communication shows up in our courses, and how we can assess it not as performance, but as formation.
Assessing Agile Communication in K-12 Education written by Julie Crum MEd
In the age of AI, communication itself is no longer the differentiator. Artificial intelligence can draft emails, summarize meetings, generate presentations, and simulate conversation in seconds. What it cannot do is read the room, navigate disagreements with care, adjust communication in response to others, take responsibility for misunderstandings, or build trust over time. These capacities remain distinctly human, and they require intentional development.
For this reason, assessing agile communication consistently across projects and over multiple years is essential as we prepare students for life and work in an AI-shaped world. When communication is assessed only through a single presentation, debate, or essay, students learn to treat it as a performance. In reality, communication is a process.
In professional settings, individuals are evaluated not on how well they communicate once, but on how they collaborate over time. Success depends on the ability to respond to feedback, clarify misunderstandings, adapt messages for different audiences, and revise ideas as work evolves. In most workplaces, collaboration is ongoing and revision is constant. Employees are expected to share unfinished work projects, receive feedback productively, communicate clearly and concisely, and navigate disagreement without damaging trust.
When teachers use repeatable communication assessment routines across subjects and grade levels, students begin to see communication as a habit rather than a one-time event. Repeated exposure to shared expectations helps students develop responsiveness, reflection, and growth over time - skills that closely mirror the demands of the modern workplace.
With this in mind, this article shares agile communication routines that can be applied across assignments, disciplines, and grade bands. The goal is to support educators in treating communication as a sustained practice embedded throughout the learning process. By graduation, students who experience this approach are comfortable revising ideas, receiving feedback, clarifying meaning, and collaborating to solve problems. These are the skills that allow students to use AI effectively as a tool while contributing to the uniquely human capacities technology cannot replace, thus preparing them not only for the workplace, but for leadership, relationships, and life.
Lower Elementary: Kindergarten - 2nd Grade
Communication is constant and organic for our youngest learners. This makes frequent, low-stakes assessment easy to integrate into learning time. Assessments happen during normal play, classroom centers, and familiar classroom activities, which allows students to practice the habit of communicating with others in natural moments on a regular basis. This removes the pressure to perform and allows teachers to clearly observe a student’s growth.
Agile Communication Routine: Listen • Check • Fix
Fink Category: Learning How to Learn
This simple assessment is exactly what the name explains. The teacher models and then observes the student listening to others (both the teacher and peers), checking for understanding, and fixing any miscommunication or making adjustments to fix something in response to a suggestion.
When to Use:
During any partner or small-group activity
When students give or follow directions
During play-based learning, centers, or building tasks
Across the year as a consistent communication routine
What Teacher Does:
Models listening, checking, and fixing language aloud
Prompts students with simple questions (“Can you tell me what your partner shared?” “Do you understand, or do you have a question?” “What change will you make now?”)
Observes interactions during normal classroom activity
Reinforces behaviors with immediate, specific praise
How Teacher Assesses:
Uses a repeating observation checklist over time
Notes evidence during natural classroom moments
Assesses growth across multiple activities rather than one event
Uses verbal feedback instead of grades
Sample Rubric Language:
Students are learning both to receive and give feedback, so the teacher will watch for both.
Listens without interrupting
Checks understanding
Fixes misunderstandings kindly
Receives and acts on suggestions
Provides feedback
Example in Action: Here’s what this could look like in a classroom.
Students are working in partners or centers (blocks, math manipulatives, art station, pretend play, or a simple building task).
The teacher does not stop instruction for a “test,” instead, he/she observes communication habits as they naturally occur.
Teacher Prompt:
“I’m going to watch how you help each other.
First, listen to your partner.
Then check to make sure you understand. You can ask, ‘Is this what you mean?’
If something isn’t working, fix it together.”
Student Example:
Listen
A student pauses and looks at their partner while the partner explains:
“The blocks go here so it doesn’t fall.”
Check
The student responds:
“So the big ones go on the bottom?”
Fix
When the tower wobbles, the student adjusts and says:
“Let’s try it this way instead.”
How the Teacher Assesses (Low-Stakes, Observational)
The teacher briefly observes and uses this Quick Observation Checklist:
⬜ Listens to a peer or teacher without interrupting
⬜ Checks for understanding by repeating, asking, or responding
⬜ Fixes their work or behavior after feedback
⬜ Stays flexible when an idea doesn’t work the first time
No grades, no pressure. This is about building habits.
What This Assesses:
Teachers are looking for the beginnings of agile communication: active listening, a willingness and ability to clarify, a willingness to be corrected and make adjustments, emotional regulation during communication, and early collaboration skills.
Why This Works:
Young learners communicate constantly, making frequent, low-stakes assessment possible. Because assessment happens during normal play and learning, students are not performing for a score. Instead, they are practicing a habit. Over time, teachers can clearly see growth in clarity, patience, and cooperation as the student’s agile communication skills grow.
Upper Elementary: 3rd-6th Grade
Students in this age range are ready to understand the importance of communication, as well as the specific goal of communication during activities. When teachers use the same communication assessment throughout the year, students can spend less energy worrying about what the teacher wants and instead focus on the learning goal with confidence.
Agile Communication Routine: Share • Clarify • Support
Fink Category: Learning How to Learn
When to Use:
During ongoing projects or group work
In check-ins, peer feedback, or planning sessions
Across subjects (writing, science, STEAM, history)
At regular intervals to monitor progress
What Teacher Does:
Establishes a consistent communication structure
Coaches students to summarize and stay on purpose
Models how to ask for and offer help
Facilitates brief reflection after communication routines
How Teacher Assesses
Uses a single-point rubric applied across projects
Collects short reflection responses
Observes peer interactions for clarity and responsiveness
Assesses communication separately from content mastery
Example in Action: In a 3rd-6th Grade classroom, this might look like the example below.
Students are working on an ongoing group project (designing a model bridge, creating a history exhibit, planning a science investigation)
Teacher Prompt:
“Before you continue building, I want to listen to how you communicate.
One person, share what your group is planning next.
Another person, clarify by asking a question or restating the idea.
A third person, support the idea with evidence, encouragement, or a suggestion.”
Student Example:
Students are working in small groups. Each group pauses midway through the project for a 2–3 minute “communication check.” One student shares an idea or update, the group responds, and then work resumes.
Share
“I think we should move the support beams closer together so the bridge doesn’t sag.”
Clarify
“Do you mean closer in the middle or closer at the ends?”
Support
“That makes sense because when we tested it earlier, the middle bent the most.”
How the Teacher Assesses (Formative, In-the-Moment)
The teacher listens briefly and checks for flexible, responsive communication, not perfect language. Since this specific example calls for each student to focus on one specific area, the teacher may note the area of focus.
Quick Observation Checklist:
⬜ Student clearly shares an idea related to the task
⬜ Student clarifies by asking a relevant question or restating
⬜ Student supports ideas using evidence, reasoning, or encouragement
⬜ Student adjusts thinking based on peer input
Optional Student Reflection (1 Minute)
One way our group communicated well today was _______.
One thing we could improve next time is _______.
We’re still building skills, so no grades are necessary.
What This Assesses:
Teachers are watching to see how students adapt in real time, use purpose-driven communication, and practice the key agile communication skills of listening, adjusting, and responding.
Why This Works:
Upper elementary students are ready to understand that communication has a goal. Using the same assessment across projects reduces cognitive load and allows students to focus on improving how they communicate, not guessing what the teacher wants each time. The repetition builds confidence and independence.
Secondary: 7th-12th Grade
For secondary students, mastering communication starts with seeing it as a vital professional tool. This section explores how a shared assessment used across different projects helps students spot patterns in their own habits. By valuing responsiveness above perfection, this model promotes a culture of growth where students feel safe to experiment, revise, and improve.
Agile Communication Routine: Feedback • Revise • Reflect
Fink Category: Application
When to Use:
During drafting and revision phases
In collaborative projects or labs
Before major submissions
Across disciplines as a professional skill
What Teacher Does:
Sets clear expectations for feedback quality
Enforces time and focus constraints
Observes and coaches communication in real time
Requires evidence of revision tied to communication
How Teacher Assesses:
Uses a reusable process-focused rubric
Evaluates quality of feedback and responsiveness
Reviews revision annotations or reflection statements
Assesses communication as a distinct skill
Sample Rubric Language:
Gives specific, actionable feedback
Revises efficiently based on input
Reflects insightfully on communication choices
Example in Action: Here’s an example of how this could look in secondary classrooms.
Students are in the drafting or development phase of a project (essay, lab report, prototype, presentation, research brief, or collaborative plan).
The focus is not just on improving the product—but on how students use communication to adapt their thinking.
Teacher Prompt:
“Before moving forward, you’ll pause to seek feedback, make a purposeful revision, and then reflect on how the feedback shaped your work.”
Student Example:
Feedback
A student shares a draft claim or design and asks:
“Does this clearly explain my reasoning, or is something missing?”
A peer responds:
“Your claim is strong, but I’m not sure how your evidence connects to it.”
Revise
The student adjusts the work and shares with partner:
“I added a sentence explaining how the data supports my claim.”
Reflect
The student writes or says:
“The feedback helped me see where my explanation broke down. Clarifying that connection strengthened my argument.”
How the Teacher Assesses (Formative or Summative)
The teacher looks for evidence of responsive communication, not just compliance.
Quick Observation Checklist:
⬜ Student actively seeks or receives specific feedback
⬜ Student revises based on feedback (not surface-level edits only)
⬜ Student can explain why a revision was made
⬜ Student reflects on how communication improved the work
Optional Reflection Prompts (Choose One)
“Which piece of feedback most improved your work and why?”
“What did you change after feedback that you wouldn’t have noticed on your own?”
“How did revising improve clarity for your audience?”
This can be a conference note, rubric row, or brief written reflection depending on if the teacher needs a formative or summative assessment.
What This Assesses:
This routine allows teachers to look for willingness to receive feedback and responsiveness to feedback, ability to revise based on feedback, and metagonitive awareness during reflection. Students should be growing in precision and clarity in communication, as well as professional collaboration habits.
Why This Works for Secondary Learners
Respects student autonomy and intellectual ownership
Applies across subjects: ELA, science, history, math, STEM, arts
Builds professional habits aligned with workplace expectations
Reinforces that strong communication is iterative, not one-and-done
Why This Works:
Secondary students benefit from seeing communication as a professional competency. Because this assessment can be reused across projects, students begin to recognize patterns in their own communication habits. The focus on responsiveness instead of perfection encourages risk-taking, revision, and growth.
Agile communication is not something students demonstrate once. It’s a skill they practice and develop over time. When we assess it consistently, we help students develop the human skills AI cannot replace, equipping them with habits needed to collaborate, lead, and adapt in a world shaped by rapid change.
Assessing Agile Communication in Higher Education
Assessment of agile communication is going to focus on formation, not just product. So, here are some things to consider regarding both the assignment and the assessment for each area of significant learning.
When you’re promoting the application, you want to give students the opportunity to practice applying concepts several times and across multiple areas, providing feedback as they go. When you’re assessing, provide clear criteria that you’ll use to do so, so students understand what you’re looking for in their responses.
In the area of integration, provide students with the opportunity to learn about the different areas or subjects that are being connected, and then have them practice making those connections, identifying similarities and differences and how the concepts interact or intersect with one another. Assessment of integration is going to focus on the clarity of the connections that students are able to articulate, along with the extent of the integration.
To promote the human dimension, create direct or indirect opportunities to hear the stories of others and provide the opportunity to reflect on the impact of hearing differing perspectives on their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. When you’re assessing this work, you’ll want to consider the student’s ability to to clearly reflect the change in their own way of thinking or behaving once the new information has been considered.
Writing to Discover through Public Discourse
(Op-Ed Assignment)
Course Context: First-Year Seminar or Composition
Fink Categories: Application, Integration, Human Dimension
In this assignment, students write an original op-ed for a real-world publication. They choose a timely issue, research diverse perspectives, and craft a position that reflects their voice, values, and understanding of the audience.
What makes this assignment powerful is that it doesn’t just assess writing, it assesses communication as action. Students must:
Choose an authentic audience
Practice persuasive and ethical communication
Integrate course content, research, and lived experience
Revise based on feedback to improve clarity and impact
You’ll want the rhetorical sequence of this assignment to scaffold the work, leading students from topic selection and outline to full draft, peer feedback, and submission.
Why it works:
This assignment combines intellectual rigor with real-world practice. It requires students to think critically, write with purpose, and reflect on how their communication affects others. It moves them from monologue to dialogue.
Rubric Highlights:
Thinking Skills: Clear argumentation, evidence use, contextual awareness
Audience Skills: Rhetorical awareness, empathy, respect for opposing views
Process Skills: Structure, revision, coherence, and tone
Human Dimension: Reflection on voice, values, and communicative identity
Rubric criteria are designed to measure clarity, responsiveness, and ethical reasoning rather than just focusing on grammar or word count. In this assignment, students are invited to grow in how they think, how they listen, and how they speak.
Presentation Feedback Sessions
Course Context: General Education, Communication, or Capstone
Fink Categories: Application, Learning How to Learn
In Lipscomb’s POWERS courses (this is our Power of Words Rhetorical Sequence pairing of two courses, one focused on writing and one focused on speaking), students orally present ideas connected to the assignment above at key checkpoints and receive peer feedback in faculty guided sessions. These presentations are formative, designed not just to showcase speaking skills but to practice revising in public, receiving feedback, and improving clarity.
Assessment Strategies:
Rather than grading just the final product, assessment includes:
A feedback tracker: What feedback did the student receive, and what changes did they make in response?
A self-evaluation: What did they notice about their communication style under pressure?
A growth rubric: How did the student improve across checkpoints? Was their message clearer, more precise, or more audience-aware?
Why it works:
This model reinforces that communication is a process, not just a one time performance. Students are assessed on adaptability, openness to feedback, and commitment to learning from peers.
We use these combined assignments in both the writing and speaking POWERS courses as a crossover, linking the types of communication. The combination of having students explore and discuss a single topic across multiple communication modes, both written and oral, provides a consistent experience of growth that models real world dialogue.
Perspective Exchange Dialogues
Course Context: Psychology, Ethics, First-Year Seminar
Fink Categories: Human Dimension, Application, Integration
In this assignment, students explore a hot-button issue by researching and respectfully presenting a perspective they may not personally hold. They work in small groups, take on assigned positions, and then debrief as a class.
Students are assessed on:
How clearly and respectfully they explain the assigned view
How they respond to questions or critiques
How well they reflect on the experience afterward
Why it works:
This kind of assignment moves students from reaction to reflection, from winning an argument to understanding a position. The dialogue becomes a lab for practicing listening, respect, and persuasive clarity, which are hallmarks of agile communication.
Assessing the Formation, Not Just Speech or Writing
To assess agile communication well, we have to move beyond presentations and grammar checks. We must create opportunities for students to:
Practice communication in real contexts
Reflect on their own growth as communicators
Revise their thinking and their delivery
That means using rubrics that focus on:
Clarity and ethical framing
Responsiveness to audience and context
Revision and feedback integration
Thoughtfulness, not just fluency
As faculty, we’re shifting our perspective on what we’re assessing. In this context, we must ask not only “Can they speak?” but “Can they listen?”Not only “Did they use the right framework?” but “Did they connect the ideas?” Not only “Did they make a clear point?” but “Did they make space for learning and growth in their own perspective?”
“Hot Topics” Role-Based Dialogue Assignment
Course Context: Child Psychology, First-Year Seminar, any course focused on learning and applying theories to practice
Fink Categories: Application, Human Dimension, Integration
In this classroom activity, students identify challenging social or real world topics related to the course (e.g., parenting styles, nature vs. nurture, gun control, fair housing). Working in small groups, students are assigned opposing perspectives to research and present.
Importantly, students aren’t graded on what they believe. They’re assessed on how well they:
Ethically represent a viewpoint that may not be their own
Adapt their communication to clarify, persuade, or respond
Ask good questions and demonstrate understanding
Reflect on the experience of stepping into another view
Assessment Strategies:
When assessing this type of active learning assignment, you’ll want to use a rubric that evaluates:
Respectful Representation: Did the student present the viewpoint fairly and with integrity?
Clarity & Responsiveness: Could they articulate key arguments and respond to pushback clearly?
Dialogue & Listening: Did they ask questions that showed curiosity and engagement?
Reflection: Did they name what they learned both about the topic and about communication?
This assignment supports both Application, as students use communication skills in real-time, and Human Dimension, as students reflect on the complexity of representing various viewpoints.
Communication that Forms, Not Performs
AI can simulate conversation and generate words. But, it can’t generate trust between two people or groups of people. It can’t discern when to speak and when to listen, understanding the power of quiet moments of reflection. It doesn’t know how to hold disagreement with grace, building connections even through differing perspectives.
Reimagining the Assessment of Communication as Formation
Here are some questions for educational leaders to consider regarding communication as formation:
What kinds of conversations are we preparing students to navigate, transactional, performative, or transformational?
Are our learning environments equipping students to communicate across difference, tension, and ambiguity, or just to deliver polished content?
Where in our programs are students invited to reflect on who they are becoming as communicators and listeners? Do they see communication as an expression of values and vocation, or as a performance to manage?
Do our assessments measure presence, adaptability, and ethical engagement, or just fluency and formatting? What might shift if we assessed for connection instead of control?
How often do students engage in real dialogue, not just structured debate or presentation, but the kind of conversation that requires empathy, revision, and courage? Are we giving them room to make mistakes, return to the conversation, and grow?
What does our institutional culture communicate about communication? Are we modeling transparency, responsiveness, and collaboration, or reinforcing hierarchy and performance?
These are the things our students need to learn in a complex, rapidly changing and often combative world. And these are the things that our assessments must be designed to support.
Agile communication is not a soft skill. It is a vital capacity for leadership and civic participation. Let’s assess it like it matters, because it does.
References
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (Revised and updated ed.). Jossey-Bass.
 | A guest post by
|