Module 5 Discussion
Support Group #3
After studying Module 5: Lecture Materials & Resources, discuss a very brief description (one paragraph for the group session– do NOT include the actual 12-steps) to include the following:
- Official name of the program or group you observed.
- When and where did you go to the group?
- Why did you choose this specific meeting?
- Brief history of program or group – MUST CITE – you obtained this information somewhere. If you obtained information during the meeting, cite IN the paper “personal communication”. (not on the Reference page)
- Criteria for client entrance into program or group.
- Describe the demographics of the group, (ie., age, gender, ethnicity, number of members)
- Organization’s goals of program or group.
The main body of the paper should address:
- Your objective impression of the program or group in meeting the clients’ needs and your rationale.
- Identify two or more therapeutic factors observed. Provide a detailed description of these factors.
- In your opinion, was the group process (leadership style, established norms, etc.) effective?
- Were there any patient management issues, and how were they handled?
- Describe your feelings about this group and how it enriched you.
- Would you refer future clients to this group?
Submission Instructions:
- Your initial post should be at least 250-500 words, formatted and cited in the current APA style.
- Provide support for your work from at least 2 academic sources less than 5 years old.
- Your initial post is worth 8 points.
- You should respond to at least two of your peers by extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts. Your reply posts are worth 2 points. (1 point per response)
- All replies must be constructive and use literature where possible.
- Please post your initial response by 11:59 PM ET Thursday, and comment on the posts of two classmates by 11:59 PM ET Sunday.
- You can expect feedback from the instructor within 48 to 72 hours from the Sunday due date.
Grading Rubric
Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.
| Discussion Rubric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Ratings | Points | |||
| Identification of Main Issues, Problems, and Concepts | Distinguished – 4 points Post is substantively accurate. Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Provides exceptional and thought-provoking analysis that directly addresses details and/or examples of the main topic. |
Excellent – 3 points Post is mostly related to the topic. Demonstrates understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. It provides some supporting details and/or examples. Analyses not as clear as they could be. |
Fair – 1-2 points Demonstrates limited understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. No details and/or examples are given. |
Poor – 0 points Post is off-topic, incorrect and/or irrelevant to the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Analyses are not well organized or clear. |
4 points |
| APA Formatting Guidelines | Distinguished – 2 points The reference page contains at least the required current scholarly academic reference and text reference. Follows APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations. |
Excellent – 1 point The reference page contains one current scholarly academic resource and text reference. Follows most APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations. |
Fair – 0.5 points The reference page contains one current or outdated scholarly academic resource. Many errors of APA guidelines: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations. |
Poor – 0 points The reference page contains no current scholarly academic resources, only internet web pages, or no reference page. Lack of APA guidelines for references provided or in-text citations. |
2 points |
| Writing Mechanics | Distinguished – 2 points Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling is correct. |
Excellent – 1 point Few grammatical errors, but sentences could be clearer and more precise. |
Fair – 0.5 points The paper contains a few grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. |
Poor – 0 points The paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. |
2 points |
| Response to Posts of Peers | Distinguished – 2 points Constructively responded to two other posts and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal to each. |
Fair – 1 point Constructively responded to one other post and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal. |
Poor – 0 points Provided no response to a peer’s post.
|
2 points | |
| Total Points | 10 | ||||
