Mechanisms of Mind-Body Therapies Case Study Debate Coursework
hello
I want some one to write for me the 500 words script for the Presentation, and the powerpoint, and 1000 words summary
MMBT Case Study Debate Coursework 22-23
Mechanisms of Mind-Body Therapies Case Study Debate Coursework
Refer/Defer Students
The assessment is similar to the original assessment, except that you will be recording a 8-10 minute presentation, rather than taking part in a debate. Please read the guidance carefully and let me know if you have any questions.
Weighting: 40% of module mark
Length: Recorded Presentation: 5 minutes
Individual summary: 1000 words
Debate weeks: Monday 10th July at 1pm . Groups will be allocated a date at the beginning of module.
Individual summary deadline: Monday 10th July at 1pm
Assessment Rationale
The Real-World Debate to engage in enables students to apply a mind-body intervention to an actual case. The assessment therefore replicates an activity that practitioners continuously engage in, in the real world. Practitioners of mind-body interventions also need to have the ability to argue for why their intervention would be helpful for a particular case, especially in a context where more mainstream therapies are the norm. Indeed, application of knowledge, the ability to argue and group work are essential employability skills. This assessment is designed to assess LO’s 2, 3, 4, 6.
Instructions
Students choose one mind-body intervention and are tasked with presenting a case for why that therapy would be most appropriate for the client. You must check your chosen intervention is suitable with the module leader before beginning. Please email Jo at [email protected]
The student should introduce their case study and present their case for how their therapy would apply to the client and argue for why it should be that particular therapy which would be best suited.
The assessment will be made of two marks:
1) 25% of the assessment mark will be a recorded presentation mark. Students will be marked on: timing and level of engagement, the structure, clarity and audibility of the discussion, as well as quality of the material.
2) 75% of the assessment mark will be an individual mark for the 1000 word summary of the pros and cons of the intervention for the case study. Students will be marked on: depth of knowledge of the mind-body therapies; application of the therapy to the clinical presentation; evaluation of the therapy’s benefit to the case. Refer/Defer students should also reflect on how their experience may have been different if they had engaged group work. For example, how might their understanding of the debate have been enhanced by working in a group? What might they have got from the other group members, had they been part of a group?
Recorded Presentation Structure (5 minutes)
A link explaining how to record narration on a PowerPoint: Recording a ppt. with narration
Introduction: Introduce the case study, the group and the intervention
Debate: Argue for why their intervention should be applied to the case study.
Consider the following:
1) Introducing the intervention
2) Application to the case study:
a. Which aspects of the client’s presentation can it address? How could it address them?
b. What does the literature say -if there are not articles directly relating the intervention to the presenting issues, are there any on related issues/age groups etc.? Remember to cite the names of the authors of any articles.
c. What do practitioners/service-users say about the intervention?
d. What are the main strengths of the intervention, in relation to the case study?
Individual Summary of Interventions
Word count: 1000 words
Suggested structure:
· Brief introduction. Due to the short word count, there is no need to summarise the case study but you MUST name the client, so that the marker knows which one you used.
· Outline the advantages and disadvantages of the intervention discussed in your group’s debate, in relation to the case study.
· Reflect on how your experience may have been different if you had engaged group work. For example, how might your understanding of the debate have been enhanced by working in a group? What might you have got from the other group members, had you been part of a group?
Please note: You are unable to use the intervention you presented in the Debate, as one of your interventions for the Service Report.
Assessment Rubrics
Group Debate (10% of module mark)
|
Component |
Fail (<40) |
Poor (40+) |
Fair (50+) |
Good (60+) |
Excellent (70+) |
|
Quality and quantity of research discussed |
Minimal or no research discussed in the debate |
Minimal research cited in the debate, but may be vague |
Some research into the interventions present, used to back up arguments in the debate. It is generally up to date and relevant but some may not be. |
Very good use of research to back up arguments in the debate. Research cited is up to date and relevant. |
Excellent use of a range of research to back up arguments in the debate. Research cited is up to date and relevant and used to convince the audience. |
|
Ability to respond to group members’ points |
Points from other group members are misunderstood or responded to in a vague and/or inaccurate way |
Some points from other groups members may be misunderstood or responded to in a vague and/or inaccurate way, however there are some appropriate responses made. |
Some points from other group members are understood and appropriately responded to in a clear and accurate way. |
Most points from other group members are understood and responded to with a clear and convincing counter-argument. |
The majority of points from other groups members are understood and responded to with a very clear and convincing counter-argument, bringing new understanding to the point being discussed. |
|
Clarity and structure of presentation |
The structure of the debate is unclear, Points are unclear and difficult for the audience to follow. |
The structure of the debate is not very clear, Some points may be unclear and difficult for the audience to follow at times. |
The structure of the debate is generally clear, Points are fairly clear and possible for the audience to follow and understand. |
The structure of the debate is clear, Points are clearly made and the audience is able to follow it well. |
The structure of the debate is very clear, Points are very clearly made and the audience is able to follow it very well. |
|
Group Coordination |
Group members are unsure when they should be speaking, and the group seems confused about the structure of the debate. The group seems disconnected and it is apparent that there has been little communication between the group members |
Group members may be unsure when they should be speaking at times but have an understanding of the structure of the debate. There may be confusion as to who is speaking when. It is evident that there has been at least some coordination and communication between group members |
Group members generally know what parts they are contributing to, the order of the speakers and the structure of the debate sections. It is evident that there has been good coordination and communication between the group members. |
Group members are clear on what parts they are contributing to, the order of the speakers and the structure of the debate sections. The debate goes smoothly. It is evident that there has been very good coordination and communication between the group members. |
Group members are very clear on what parts they are contributing to, the order of the speakers and the structure of the debate sections. The debate goes very smoothly. It is evident that there has been excellent coordination and communication between the group members. |
Individual Summary (30% of module mark)
|
Component |
Fail (<40) |
Poor (40+) |
Fair (50+) |
Good (60+) |
Excellent (70+) |
|
Depth of knowledge of the mind-body therapies discussed |
Minimal or no depth of knowledge of the therapies discussed. The discussion is vague and/or inaccurate. Minimal or no references as to where information is coming from. |
Minimal depth of knowledge of the therapies discussed. The discussion may be vague at times. Minimal references as to where information is coming from. |
Some depth of knowledge of the therapies shown. The discussion has some clarity and specificity. There are appropriate references to back up points made. |
Good depth of knowledge of the therapies shown. The discussion is clear and specific. References are used well to back up arguments. |
Excellent depth of knowledge of the therapies shown. The discussion is very clear with specific points. References are used well to back up arguments. |
|
Application of therapy to the case |
Points about therapies are not connected or applied to the case. |
Points about therapies are fairly general and minimally applied to the case. |
Points about therapies are consistently applied to the case. |
Points about therapies are applied well to the case, shedding new light on the case. |
Points about therapies are excellently applied to the case, with insight and originality. |
|
Evaluation of the therapies’ benefit to the case |
Minimal or no evaluation. Little discussion of the advantages or disadvantages of the therapies’ in relation to the case. |
Some evaluation, including discussion of the advantages or disadvantages of the therapies’ in relation to the case. Points may be general and vague. |
Appropriate evaluation of the therapies, including discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the therapies’ in relation to the case. |
Very good evaluation of therapies, including clear discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the therapies’ in relation to the case. |
Excellent evaluation of therapies, including very clear discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the therapies’ in relation to the case. |
|
Presentation The overall readability of the case study including sentence structure, grammar, spelling and academic style of writing |
General structure of summary is difficult to follow. Paragraphs are unfocused, incoherent or require restructuring. Topic sentences are absent or unconnected to the paragraphs that follow. Signposting is poor. |
There is evidence of some structure to the summary but it may be hard to follow in places. Paragraphs have some coherence but may not be well focussed. Topic sentences can be followed and have some connection to the main paragraph but may be poorly structured and/or focussed. There is minimal signposting |
Summary has separate introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, but connections among these could be improved. Most paragraphs are coherently structured. Topic sentences signal structure of argument, but may require more focus. Signposting helps connect parts of argument. |
Summary is well organised and has separate introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Paragraphs contain clear topic sentences and have a coherent and organised structure, which mostly focus on a single issue. There is an evident argument being followed. Effective use of signposts that help make the structure of review clear. |
Summary is very well organized, containing an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Paragraphs contain clear topic sentences, focus on a single issue, are coherent, and organized according to an obvious pattern of argument. Very effective use of signposts that make the structure of review clear. |
|
Citations and References How well the references are presented in the reference section |
Some or many in-text citations are missing or otherwise incorrect. Some or many references are missing in the reference list, or otherwise incorrect. |
Some in-text citations are included, with some missing or otherwise incorrect. Some references in the reference list are included, with some missing or otherwise incorrect |
Citations are included with some issues identified with citations and/or reference list. |
Citations are included, and approach predominately follows one style (e.g. Harvard or APA). Reference list is mostly complete and correct. |
Citations are included, and approach follows one style (e.g. Harvard or APA) consistently. Reference list is correct and complete. |
,
Mechanisms of Mind-Body Therapies Debate Case Study
Sommerville Surgery
10 Magnolia Street
London
Dear Mental Health Team,
Please accept this referral to your service. Stan is a 55-year old male who took early retirement from work as a construction worker, on medical grounds. Stan tells me that he experienced chronic pain after an accident at work 10 years ago. He was working on a building site when he fell at height from some defective scaffolding. Stan needed to have major surgery on his back and leg after the fall and was unable to work on a building site again. Although Stan recovered from most of his major injuries within a year of his surgery, Stan reports being left with chronic pain in his back and leg, meaning that it is an effort to walk. Stan received compensation for the accident, which he used to build a luxury shed in the garden and to go on holidays with his wife. He mentioned that he and his wife had always gone on active holidays in the past and that he found it hard to adjust to more sedate activities, due to his reduced mobility. Before his accident, Stan reports being “just fine”, enjoying meeting friends in the pub, DIY and going hiking with his wife and two adult children. When I enquired about his childhood, Stan remarked that his mother had always had high expectations of him and that he had not known his Dad.
Stan reports that he sits at home most days, despite his wife’s attempts to get him out of the house with her. He dislikes leaving the house because he feels embarrassed by his reduced mobility and anticipates most activities as being hard work and painful. Stan has a few friends that he used to go to the pub with regularly, however he hasn’t felt able to tell them about his pain meaning that he has avoided seeing them.
Stan has been married to his wife for 30 years and he reports feels guilty for not being a better partner to her. He tries to make up for this by taking care of long-standing home repairs. Stan recognizes that he often overdoes it when he takes on one of these projects, which exacerbates his pain and leads him to feel hopeless. He starts to focus on all that he has lost and imagines a future in which he is weak, and house bound. He also acknowledges that, when he is in this physical and emotional state, he is likely to snap at his wife and say things he later regrets. I have offered to refer Stan for talking therapy, but he is hesitant about the idea of talking to a stranger about his emotions. I therefore wonder if there is anything else that your service could offer Stan?
Yours faithfully,
Dr Reese
image1.jpeg
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
