Presentation Case Study Debate Coursework

MMBTRefer_DeferCaseStudyDebateCoursework22-232.docx

Home >Psychology homework help >Presentation Case Study Debate Coursework

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.