P-MOPS Discussion Assignment - Directions for the Analysis

Length and Format: 1000 words to about 1250 words (but certainly no more than 1500 words), written on your own, submitted to the relevant ANGEL drop box as a .doc, .docx, or .pdf file. Submitting in another file format (such as .rtf, .odt, .wpf, .wps, .pages, or a Google Doc) will result in no credit. Please use paragraphs to organize your ideas. Submissions of a single long paragraph will only earn half credit.

The Prompt: Evaluate the overall quality of the group's discussion. As you consider both group and individual behaviors, your primary focus should be to evaluate:

? the group's effectiveness at strategically executing P-MOPS

? the effectiveness of the specific analytical (problem-solving) and social (interpersonal)processes enacted

Methods:

Note that merely summarizing what occurred is not the same as thing as evaluating what occurred. Be sure the behaviors you highlight support claims about quality or effectiveness. Don't merely say that the group did something; likewise, don't merely say how the group did something--although you'll need to mention both, which can help explain behavioral functions. Instead, your ultimate goal is to say how well the group accomplished the task.

Here are some things you might consider when developing support for your overall claims about the quality of the conversation-but don't feel limited to these topics:

? Given the specific topic your group selected, in what ways did the group successfully manage the methods and goals of P-MOPS specifically, and strategic conversations generally? How effective were these methods?

? What conversation practices (social processes) were especially successful, either on an individual or group level?

? In what ways did the group not meet the goals of strategic conversations? (In other words, what were the analytical or interpersonal weak points of the group discussion?) What were the effects of these limitations?

? How/how well did the group manage disagreement in the course of the discussion?

? What changes in individual or group behaviors, roles, or norms would strengthen the group's analytical or social processes?

? What recommendations would you give to the group to improve its effectiveness if it were to engage in future projects? Why do you see these as most important?

During your analysis, reference specific content from the discussion; don't merely rely on memory, but instead use specific details/actions as evidence to support your assessment. To refer to behaviors or comments in your writing, you can reference the time (or time range) in parentheses, like this: (15:05). If you're referencing something someone said, make sure to paraphrase rather than directly quoting them. In many cases, you also could discuss the behavior or comment relative to the P-MOPS steps. ("As we transitioned from step 2 to 3, I summarized the group's progress thus far, which...")

Provide some summary details at the end of your document. (Note: None of these items count toward your word count.)

1. List the total number of words in the analysis, excluding these summary details.

2. List the total time of the conversation. It's ok to round off to the nearest minute.

3. List (or describe) the last step of P-MOPS the group completed. Remember, it's ok if the group didn't complete all the steps.

4. Rate the preparation and contribution of group members, including yourself:

List each group member's name-including yourself-and numerically rate their level of research preparation and contributions. Use a 1 to 7 scale, where:

1= absolutely no preparation/research; minimal contributions

7= complete mastery of the topic (very rare)

Once averaged with the other group members' ratings, scores of 5-7 will typically have no adverse effect on the individual's grade; ratings of 3-4 may have a modest effect on the individual's grade; scores of 1-2 will have a more significant effect on the individual's score (full letter grade or more).

In a typical group, most group members are at the 5 or 6 level. Please maintain the integrity of this process by providing honest feedback and by not discussing your evaluation with others in your group.

Primary evaluation criteria:

? Insightfulness of analysis, including use of evidence and incorporation of course concepts to support your claims

? Accuracy of the main conclusions of your evaluation, particularly concerning P-MOPS and the analytical and social processes at work

Secondary evaluation criteria:

? Writing quality - organization, usage/grammar, and proofreading

? Level of preparation for the discussion