The group project is a semester long project with variable due dates. There are three major parts to this project. 1. The VoiceThread presentation portion of the group projects are due dependent upon your topic and presentation date. You should develop 8-10 test questions based upon your content topic assigned with the VoiceThread. 2. Three valid and current resources that are significant to your content topic and development of your case study patient, which is due dependent upon your topic and VoiceThread presentation due date. 3. The Digital Storytelling is a final digital presentation (in class) of your developed case study patient that should include some type of case management or social services issue in planning the care of the patient. Creativity in your digital work and professional presentation is key. The group project is meant to provide an opportunity to use teamwork and collaboration, while applying critical concepts and knowledge in a comprehensive way in a patient case scenario using digital tools to enhance the ‘story’. The group members are expected to collaborate together and required to present their final digital storytelling in a professional manner, as if they were presenting at a nursing event or conference. The project is worth 75 points total based upon the guidelines below.
NRS 420 Group Project Guidelines and Rubric
| Criteria | ||||
| Planning (30) | ||||
| Creativity | Completely original, strong evidence of creativity and planning | 1 element is not original in composition or not cited, some evidence of creativity and planning | Limited use of creative2 elements are not original in composition or not cited, little evidence of creativity and planning | 3 or more elements are not original in composition or not cited, limited to no evidence of creativity and very little planning |
| VT Content and Theme | Content is clearly relevant to topic for the group, disease elements, information is clear. | Content is relevant most of the time, disease elements and information are presented with minor errors | Content is relevant at least half of the time, disease elements and information are presented with some errors | Content is not relevant most of the time, disease elements and information are presented with major errors |
| Resources | Three resources were presented and linked, easy to access, and very relevant to content | Three resources were presented, with either difficulties accessing or the connection to the content is not explicit | Less than three resources presented or difficulties accessing or the resources vaguely related to the content | Less than three resources presented or no link from the resources to the content. |
| Case Study Development | The case study scenario is well developed and realistic, contributes to the overall understanding of concepts, and includes case management issue in depth. Includes 8-10 excellent test questions. | The case study scenario is developed but does not connect with each part of the story, although an attempt is made to connect it to the content, and includes case management issue. Includes 8-10 average test questions. | The case study scenario is developed, but it limitedly connects to the content or is unrealistic, or only limitedly addresses a case management issue limitedly. Includes less than 8-10 questions. | The case study scenario is poorly developed and the case management issue is only hinted at, or is difficult to discern. Does not include test questions or questions are too easy, and/or not applicable. |
| Technology (25) | ||||
| Quality of Images/Video | Images create a distinct atmosphere or tone that matches different parts of the story. The images may communicate symbolism and/or metaphors. | Images create an atmosphere or tone that matches some parts of the story. The images may communicate symbolism and/or metaphors. | An attempt was made to use images to create an atmosphere/tone but it needed more work. Image choice is logical. | Little or no attempt to use images to create an appropriate atmosphere/tone. |
| Clarity of Voice | Voice quality is clear, consistently audible in VT presentation and Digital Storytelling | Voice quality is clear, often audible (85-95%) in VT presentation and Digital Storytelling | Voice quality is clear, audible (65-84%) in VT presentation and Digital Storytelling | Voice quality is not clear, not consistently audible (< 65%) in VT presentation and Digital Storytelling |
| Pacing of Narrative | The pace (rhythm and voice punctuation) fits the story line and helps the audience really “get into” the story. | Occasionally speaks too fast or too slowly for the story line. The pacing (rhythm and voice punctuation) is relatively engaging for the audience. | Tries to use pacing (rhythm and voice punctuation), but it is often noticeable that the pacing does not fit the story line. Audience is not consistently engaged | No attempt to match the pace of the storytelling to the story line or the audience. |
| Mechanics (10) | ||||
| Timeliness | All requirements were on time. | At least one portion of the project was late. | Two portions of the project were late. | The project was not ready on time. |
| Organization | The presentation has exactly the right amount of detail throughout. It does not seem too short nor does it seem too long. Well organized, logical. Professional. | The presentation is typically good, though it seems to drag somewhat OR need slightly more detail in one or two sections. Organized and professional. | The presentation seems to need more editing. It is noticeably too long or too short in more than one section. Somewhat organized or jumps around in sections. Mostly professional. | The presentation needs extensive editing or is not organized. It is too long or too short to be interesting and lacks flow. Not professional |
| Teamwork and Collaboration (10) | ||||
| Collaboration and Group Guidelines | Group guidelines were created and clear; each group member contributed to the project | Group guidelines were created; Collaboration could have been improved between group members | Group guidelines were limited or vague; One person primarily led the contribution of ideas and development of project | Group guidelines were not created or work was divided out among the team without collaboration among members |
| Team Work and Respect | Each member treated others with respect all of the time acting as a cohesive team | Members respected one another most of the time and acted as a team. | Members intermittently respected each other or demonstrated issues in working as a time | Lack of evidence of respect or team work. |
Resources used to develop this rubric may be found at:
http://courseweb.lis.illinois.edu/~jevogel2/lis506/evaluation.html
http://www.digitales.us/evaluating-projects
http://its.ksbe.edu/dst/PDFs/Rubrics/digstorysample.pdf