02 Nov Evaluate the Group Dynamics/Roles you will evaluate the group’s roles, cohesiveness, your impression of how you feel the group worked together as a whole. (See rubric for details).?Te
Evaluate the Group Dynamics/Roles you will evaluate the group's roles, cohesiveness, your impression of how you feel the group worked together as a whole. (See rubric for details).
Evaluation of Assigned Group’s Dynamics Paper (Part II) Rubric
“Evaluate the Group Dynamics/Roles”
|
Criteria |
Excellent |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
Not Demonstrated |
|
Describe the informal leader(s) exhibited within the group and give evidence for your impressions of their performance. |
16-20 Points Addresses criteria in detail, is concise and demonstrates evidence of quality writing. |
11-15 Points Moderately addresses criteria, is concise, and primarily well written. |
6-10 Points Somewhat addresses criteria; is not concise (too wordy) but is mostly well written. |
1-5 Points Poorly addresses the criteria but is wordy (not concise). Narrative lacks evidence of quality writing. |
0 Points Does not address the required criteria |
|
Describe your group’s cohesiveness and supportive evidence for impressions that you have made. |
16-20 Points Addresses criteria in detail, is concise and demonstrates evidence of quality writing. |
11-15 Points Moderately addresses criteria, is concise, and primarily well written. |
6-10 Points Somewhat addresses criteria; is not concise (too wordy) but is mostly well written. |
1-5 Points Poorly addresses the criteria but is wordy (not concise). Narrative lacks evidence of quality writing. |
0 Points Does not address the required criteria |
|
Differentiate the roles (i.e., task, maintenance, and hindering roles) that each member played within your group, describe, and provide evidence for your impressions. |
16-20 Points Addresses criteria in detail, is concise and demonstrates evidence of quality writing. |
11-15 Points Moderately addresses criteria, is concise, and primarily well written. |
6-10 Points Somewhat addresses criteria; is not concise (too wordy) but is mostly well written. |
1-5 Points Poorly addresses the criteria but is wordy (not concise). Narrative lacks evidence of quality writing. |
0 Points Does not address the required criteria |
|
Describe conflict(s) that arose within your group and how your group addressed any conflicts and the role taken be individual members and the group as a whole. |
16-20 Points Addresses criteria in detail, is concise and demonstrates evidence of quality writing. |
11-15 Points Moderately addresses criteria, is concise, and primarily well written. |
6-10 Points Somewhat addresses criteria; is not concise (too wordy) but is mostly well written. |
1-5 Points Poorly addresses the criteria but is wordy (not concise). Narrative lacks evidence of quality writing. |
0 Points Does not address the required criteria |
|
References (must include any personal references) |
9-10 Points Greater than 3 valid/reliable references utilized (e.g., textbooks, journals). No discrepancies between in-text references and the reference list. |
6-8 Points Three valid/reliable references utilized. No more than 1 discrepancy between in-text references and the reference list. |
3-5 Points Two valid/reliable references utilized. No more than 2 discrepancies between in-text references and reference list. |
1-2 Points Only 1 valid/reliable reference utilized—greater than 2 discrepancies between in-text references and reference list. |
0 Points No valid/reliable references used, and or greater than 2 discrepancies between in-text references cited and reference list. |
|
Mechanics and APA citations and references |
9-10 Points 4 to 4.5 double-spaced pages. No spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors. No APA errors |
6-8 Points 4 to 4.5 double-spaced. One to 3 spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, and or 1-3 APA errors. |
3-5 Points 3 to 3.5 double-spaced pages. 4 to 5 spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, and or 4-5 APA errors. |
1-2 Points less than 3 double-spaced pages. > than 6 spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, and or greater than 6 APA errors. |
0 Points Paper not completed and or contains 7 or more APA, spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors. |
|
Total |
|
RUNNING HEAD TITLE: EVALUATION OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE GROUP |
|
RUNNING HEAD TITLE: LEADERSHIP EVALUATION |
2 |
Evaluation of Group Dynamic Paper Part 1
Neelam Pandit
Texas A&M University-Commerce
NURS 3313-01B
Therapeutic Communication
Professor Crystal Brakefield
The formal leader in our group was elected to the leadership role through a voting process. Initially, she assumed this role because it aligned closely with her identity and goals. During our discussions, she displayed a strong sense of self and a vision for our group's direction. She was approved to be our leader based on her ability to set a clear direction and her determination to align her aspirations to complete our project within the specified timeframe.
The leadership style I observed from her closely resembled transformational leadership (Taylor et al., 2019, p. 220). She exhibited this style by providing clear direction and establishing our project's goals, roles, and deadlines. For instance, during our recent meeting, she initiated a discussion on our team meetings, suggesting we meet biweekly in the nursing building. Additionally, she outlined the upcoming tasks, ensuring that each team member understood their role and contribution to the group's efforts.
The secretary assumed the role when she and another group member were given the option to take on the position, and she willingly accepted it. Peer pressure played a significant role in her decision, as there were expectations from some group members for her to assume this role, possibly in pursuit of gaining greater acceptance within the group. Upon reflection, her leadership style aligns with Quantum leadership (Taylor et al., 2019, pp. 219-220). This style emphasizes the interconnectedness and collaboration among group members, proving beneficial when dealing with unexpected events and dynamic environments (Taylor et al., 2019, pp. 219-220).
References
Taylor, C., Lynn, P., & Bartlett, J. L. (2019). Fundamentals of nursing: The art and science of person-centered care (9th ed.). Wolters Kluwer
R. J., Morgan, K., Saldivar, D., Pandit, N., Freeland, J., Duckworth, M., & Tran, S. (2023). Evaluation of Group Dynamic Paper Part 1.
