Critical Analysis of Group Process Paper

Dawn Platt1

Nurs 340: Community Nursing, Summer 2013

The Planned Community Change Project Group that I was placed in was group number three which included the following members: Patricia Moon, Lindsay Bennett, Cheryl Shapiro, Carly Macklin, and me. In the very beginning of the project, it was evident that the members struggled in coming together to determine meeting places or ways to effectively communicate. However, once the members got rolling with prompted efforts from mostly Patricia Moon and Cheryl Shapiro, we became a united front and started bouncing suggestions and ideas off each other. Several members suggested timelines to follow that had deadlines that certain aspects of the project needed to be completed by. Eventually one timeline just seemed to be the most effective because group members began turning in information based on that timeline. I believe that timeline was created by group member Patricia Moon.

It was suggested by one group member that addressing the obesity problem in Kent County would be a great problem to provide an intervention to. All members agreed cohesively and then we needed to decide on an age group to target. There was some back and forth but it was mostly agreed that childhood obesity was the target with the teetering towards younger versus adolescent age groups. Through several discussions and bouncing ideas around the group agreed upon the pre-adolescent/adolescent group without any qualms.

All the group members provided a plethora of information and resources about the statistics and studies which showed that obesity is a problem. However, when it came time to provide interventions, I know I was having a difficult time with creative ideas. I had a few ideas and when I went on the discussion board to submit them, member Patricia Moon, had already submitted the most creative intervention that I could not dispute or compete with. I simply posted that all my interventions did not even compare to hers and I loved it. I just provided additional information to enhance her original intervention. All the group members agreed that her intervention was perfect. Once this intervention was posted the rest just seemed to fall into place and the project started flowing. While each member provided information on each aspect of the project, each member signed up to place different parts of the project into the powerpoint and submit it into the file exchange for all to look at and modify as needed. In the end, group member, Patricia Moon, pulled a lot of the powerpoint slides together to make it one powerpoint that we could all modify. Atvery the end, I was the member who narrated the powerpoint and added the special effects and pictures for visual enhancement.

In the beginning, I know I struggled with communication and the discussion board. I always responded but sometimes it was not until the last minute. This is not normal for my usual academic work but I had accepted a new position at my facility which meant working extra hours trying to get a handle on my new position. Once things started calming down at work, my communication and discussion board participation began to improve dramatically. Members Patricia Moon and Cheryl Shapiro were the evident powerful leaders in this group. In other academic classes, I find that I usually end up being the group leader, so this was a little different for me, but it worked. I did have a difficult time with the work I provided in the beginning because it was not my best due to work and family conflictions. My first evaluations were not the greatest but they were justified.

There was truly only one small conflict among the group which had to do with communication with one member, Lindsay Bennett. There was one time all the group members except Lindsay were submitting assignments and information by the deadlines posted on the timeline. The four members that were actively participating in the discussion board kept asking if anyone had heard from Lindsay. None of the four members had any idea what was going on with this member as she was not participating in any of the discussions or submitting work. It was Patricia Moon who suggested that she would send Lindsay an e-mail stating that if we did not hear from this member that we would have to speak with the instructor, MaryJoDoerr, about this member’s nonparticipation. The member did respond to Patricia’s email and began submitting her work and participating. I was not angry with this member, and it was not apparent that the other members were angry either. No member negatively communicated about Lindsay’s lack of participation. I think all the members understood this other member’s personal circumstances of moving across the nation and getting a new job while continuing school. In the end, the situation was resolved effectively.

As a group, the collaboration and teamwork was great. Harkness and DeMarco (2012) state the following about collaboration and teamwork:

Respect for the abilities and appreciation for the contributions of community members and other health and social service professionals are essential to the success of the team building the collaboration. Depending on the specific needs and composition of the group, the community health nurse may play many different roles—team leader, team member, consultant, educator, or facilitator. Active listening is as important a nursing skill when working with community members as it is when caring for an individual person. (p. 150)

This statement is a perfect statement that describes how this group worked together. We collaborated together to agree upon a community health problem that requires intervention. In fact, collaboration occurred throughout the entire project, even up to the end. Each group member provided different ideas, suggestions, or information that was combined together to achieve a collaborated project. The nursing standard of practice of collaboration was well-demonstrated by the actions of our group. The American Nurses Association (2010) states, “the registered nurse with healthcare consumers, family, and others in the conduct of nursing practice” (p. 57). This is further explained by the following:

The registered nurse partners with others to effect change and produce positive outcomes through the sharing of knowledge of the healthcare consumer and/or situation, . . . promotes conflict management and engagement, . . . applies group processes and negotiation techniques with healthcare consumers and colleagues, . . . cooperates in creating a documented plan focused on outcomes and decisions to care and delivery of services that indicates communication with healthcare consumers, families, and others, . . . [and] engages in teamwork and team-building process. (American Nurses Association, 2010, p. 57)

We all listened to what each group member had to say and the information that each group member provided. There were definitely two team leaders that were very effective in guiding the group but we all provided knowledge, education, and personal expertise to the other team members. In addition, all the group members were very understanding when situations in personal lives became barriers to communication or participation.

I think, overall, this group worked very well together. There were a few hiccups along the way, but in the end the project was successful. This type of project was quite challenging, however. While we had to look at statistics and information about Kent County to determine a healthcare problem, I am personally not familiar with this area of Michigan so coming up with interventions that could be successful were a huge struggle for me. Community nurses find interventions to provide to their own community for issues that are prevalent in the community they work in. I do not work in Kent County nor do I live in Kent County. I think personal familiarity can assist the community nurse in providing more effective interventions because the nurse has a better understanding of the community.

I know I am a group leader, but I was very ashamed of my lack of participation in the beginning of the group project. I also work very well with others and like to incorporate others’ ideas with mine to make a successful group effort project. The place that I need to work on is my initial communication and participation. This is usually not a problem for me, but I was during this project. My plan of action will to ensure that I sign into blackboard early in the class week to check the discussion board of the group. This is when I can then post and communicate any situations that might pose a conflict with my participation in the group project. I am not one to share my woes with others, but I realize that when it comes to group projects it is important to share with other members potential barriers I might have that could delay participation. Communication is very important even when it may be negative.

References

American Nurses Association. (2010). Scope and standards of practice: Nursing (2nded.).Silver Spring, MD: The Publishing Program of the ANA.

Harkness, G. A. & DeMarco, R. F. (2012).Community and public health nursing: Evidence for practice. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Student Name: Dawn Platt

GradingRubric for Critical Analysis of Group Process Paper
Grade / Criteria
A,A-
92-100
Exceeds
Expectations /

Writerclearlyandsuccinctly describes the evolution ofthe group over time.
Writerinsightfully analyzesthegroups’interactions.
Writeridentifiesandeffectivelyusesgroup theoryconceptsto analyze the group’s process.Examplesandreferences addclarity.
Writeridentifiesandeffectivelyusesgroup theoryconceptsto analyze own behaviors androlein the group.Examples andreferencesaddclarity.
Effective use ofown and others summative evaluationsin analysis.
References scholarlyandsupport analysis.
Authormakes noerrorsingrammar, usage, spelling orAPA thatdistract the reader from the content. May haverareminorerror.Well written, clear, uses scholarly writingconventions, i.e. introduction, transitions, conclusion.

B+,B,B-
82-91
Meets
Expectations
90
Good job analyzing your group process for the group project. It sounds like it was a good learning experience.  /

Descriptionis fairly clear,maybe overlywordyor incomplete.Groupchangesover time are apparent.
Writer analyzessomeofgroups’interactions, butanalysis doesn't providenewinsights.
Writer providessomedetailsto supportconclusions.
Writer discussesprocessand theorybutdoesn’tmakeastrongconnection.Lacksinsight and/orsupport.No use of group theory/process concepts.
Writer describesown behaviors butanalysis and insightlacks depth.
Examplesand references present but notalwaysrelevant.The support you used for analysis was very good.
Usesevaluationsinsomewhat of an analyticway (maybemoreasnarrative).Very little mention of evaluations (self/peer).
Referencesamix ofscholarlyand generalsourcesand/ornoteffectively supports analysis.
Authormakes 1-2errorsingrammar, spelling orAPAthatmay distract the reader from the content. May havefewminorerrors.Mostlywellwritten, clear,uses most scholarly writingconventions, i.e. introduction, transitions, conclusion.

C+,C,C-
72-81
Approaches
Expectations /

Descriptionisclearinmost areas,lacks precisioninsomedescriptionsor evolution conceptsmaybeunclear.
Writerisverygeneralaboutinteractions,details,progression.
Conclusionsareverygeneraland evidenceslimregardingownrolewithin thegroup.
Usessome ofevaluations,maybe somemissing,incomplete or maynothavesubmitted allto peers.
Referencesareprimarily notscholarlyandmaynotbeusedto supportanalysis.
Authormakes 3-4errorsingrammar,spelling orAPAthatdistract the readerfrom the content. Contains multiple minorerrors. Still needsediting, somewhat conversational orunduly informal in tone. Lacks someof scholarly writing conventions, i.e. introduction, transitions, conclusion.

D+,D,D-
62-71
Needs
Improvement /

Writerisunclearon groupevolution.Maydescribe events or incidentsrather than frame within grouptheory.
Writerisinaccurateor provides nosupport.
Writer doesn'trelatetheorytogroupprocess orevolution.
Writershows lackof awareness ofownrolein group.
Doesnotuse own orpeersformativeorsummativeevaluations.Didnot provide evaluations to peers.Littleto noanalysis.References absent orinappropriate.
Authormakes morethan 4errorsingrammar,spelling orAPAthatdistract the readerfrom thecontent.Containsadditional significanterrors. Poorlywrittenwith multiple writingerrors, word misuse,lacks scholarlywritingconventions.

F
71 /

Missing, plagiarized, ordoesnotaddress the assignmentcriteria.